55 Comments - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 9:46 am: Illinois is a less ideologically conservative state so it won’t surprise me if Rudy does well here (though I expect him to fade elsewhere). Barack better win Illinois with those kind of margins if he has a prayer nationally. But I expect that the final margin over Hillary will shrink by election day and Hillary will be a strong 2nd here. - plutocrat03 - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 10:05 am: I understand the interest in the circles of political wonks, but the general public is simply not engaged at this time. It is simply too early to appy all of our statistical tools and expect to read the results as a portent of the future. To continue to to use the ‘bright shiny ball’ analogy, who know what will distract the voters in the next 14 months? Illinois is not likely to move to the Republican side regardless of who the Republicanns run. Mr. Obama will be strong in Illinois as a favoirte son. Nationally he will fade as his socialistic tendencies become better known and he has to account for the difference between his Chicago machine reality and his ‘breath of fresh air’ campaign. - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 10:21 am: Plutocrat, Why must Republicans always call someone with liberal positions a socialist? I mean it’s not as if liberals reflexively call conservatives fascists (other than Dick Cheney of course). But get serious. If you really think Barack is a socialist, you don’t have a clue what a real socialist is. - Truthful James - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 10:22 am: Early primaries make it most likely that Obama will hold his early lead. Interestingly, the early primaries make it more likely that much time will be spent before the convention politicking the platform, so that the Conventions smoothly slide along. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 10:25 am: I agree with CC. Enough with the red-baiting, please. - well... - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 10:42 am: It seems to be that CC was the one baiting by making a generalization and putting words in peoples mouths. Pluto said Obama had “socialistic tendencies” he never said “liberals are socialists” - Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 10:44 am: Red-baiting is red-baiting. Enough. - Siyotanka - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 10:44 am: My thought is most people are concerned with the “National” landscape. Interest rates, credit cruch, mortgage problems, etc. The real big problem is when the dollar tanks and is no longer the “Reserve Currency”. Until things cool down nationally, people (in very general terms)will not care about who their next governor will be…IMHO - cermak_rd - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 10:49 am: I’m not sure Romney’s plan of campaign heavily to the saturation point in early primary states and ignore the national profile is going to work with the compressed schedule we’re seeing this year. He has pretty impressive polls in NH & IA, but with the primaries coming stacked up as they are, I’m not sure he can win it all with this strategy. - Siyotanka - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 10:52 am: Oops…sorry wrong board. - so-called "Austin Mayor" - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 11:25 am: Looks like it could easily be Undecided v. Undecided in the general election. – SCAM - Squideshi - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 12:39 pm: You know, even if bloggers like Plutocrat actually DID have some idea what the word Socialist means, and even if Obama HAD so-called socialistic tendencies, which he does not, so what? Personally, I’m not a Socialist; but Socialists have had some good ideas, like an end to child labor, the eight hour workday, and the two day weekend. In other words, it would be easy to say that anyone opposed to child labor has so-called socialistic tendencies; but what’s the point? - Squideshi - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 12:43 pm: To address the question at hand, this poll failed to include the Green Party’s candidates for President. There are SEVERAL hopefuls; and there is no excuse for the University of Illinois to exclude them, other than to show a status-quo, partisan preference for the Democratic and Republican parties. Are state universities, funded with taxpayer dollars, now allowed to engage in partisan political activities by selectively excluding one of the three legally established statewide political parties in Illinois? I think that I am going to go fill out an IRS complaint. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 12:45 pm: Squid, these are PRIMARY campaign polls, not general election polls. Green preference means NOTHING in these two snapshots. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 12:47 pm: ===I think that I am going to go fill out an IRS complaint.=== Goodness, but you are deluded. Do you even think that anybody would know who your candidates are in any possible “primary” except Nader? - Squideshi - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 1:06 pm: Rich, I understand that these are primary campaign polls. We also expect to have a statewide presidential primary here in Illinois. I will concede that significantly fewer people would know who our candidates are, as we do far less mass advertising; however, omission from polls such as this only contributes to that lack of familiarity, which is a disservice to the voters. In one sense, this is free advertising for the Democratic and Republican candidates, as it puts their names out in front of the electorate, and bolsters their name recognition, at the expense of our candidates. If they HAD included the Green candidates, perhaps some of those surveyed would have said, “Hmmm… I’ve never heard that name before. I think that I will go check them out and see what they’re all about.” I don’t think it is too much to ask for a state funded institution to treat all legally established statewide political parties exactly the same. It’s not like I am asking for any special treatment–merely equal treatment. Why am I going to file an IRS complaint? Simple. The University of Illinois has already been asked to include us in surveys like this; and if they’re unwilling to voluntarily do that, then something needs to be done to ensure that they’re complying with the law. If they’re not willing to provide equal treatment, then they should not enjoy the benefit of federal tax exemption. It’s nothing personal–I just want the rule of law enforced. - archpundit - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 1:17 pm: ====I think that I am going to go fill out an IRS complaint. What exactly are you going to complain about? - Greg - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 1:56 pm: Squideshi, Even if not including Greens in polling was a manifestation of bias (I don’t agree), it wouldn’t jeopardize the university’s tax-exempt status. I’m afraid you’re confused about those rules if you believe college pollsters are breaking them. I think Greens would be included in primary polling about the same time that every Illinois representative gets the same amount of media coverage as Madigan. - Squideshi - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 2:38 pm: “What exactly are you going to complain about?” About the arbitrary omission of all candidates of one political party for the same office. It doesn’t matter if people THINK this is bias, the IRS has already ruled that tax-exempt 501(c)(3) educational organizations are absolutely prohibited from both direct and INDIRECT political campaign intervention; and they define that to include ANYTHING that favors (or opposes) any one or more candidate for the same public office. The restrictions apply when holding candidate forums, publishing voter guides, issuing statements, and a variety of other situations, including deciding which links to include on websites. Generally, a 501(c)(3) organization must provide equal opportunity and treat equally ALL qualified candidates for the SAME public office; and if it fails to do so, as the University of Illinois has here, it puts its tax-exempt status into jeopardy. Don’t trust my word on this. Go read the rules for yourself. There has been more than one case where arbitrary omission of a candidate has resulted in an organization having been ruled to have engaged in indirect political campaign intervention. Usually, first offenders just get a warning. Here is more information about that. - Southern Ilinois Democrat - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 2:39 pm: I guess being a Dodd supporter makes me a definate minority. Oh well… last time my vote went to Wes Clark so at least I am use to being on the short end of the elction results! - Greg - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 3:00 pm: Squideshi, My college prof didn’t take any class time talking about the Greens’ role in the political process. Should that cost it 501c3 treatment? - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 3:01 pm: Oy vey. - archpundit - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 3:03 pm: That’s what I thought. You would be making a Bambenek kind of error though. The University of Illinois is a state institution and is thus exempt from taxes as an extension of the State of Illinois. But nice try. The IRS cannot do anything to the University of Illinois. That said, it would be a gross violation of academic freedom to attempt what you are trying to do. - cermak_rd - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 3:04 pm: If the Greens want some respect, they’ve got to win some elections. Come in at 33% in a presidential election, win 3 or 4 Congress critter seats, win some seats in the IL leg or the IL senate, get some judges seated, etc. At that point, they’ll be taken seriously. - rich miller - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 3:08 pm: Squid, have any of your candidtaes even filed federal paperwork to run yet? - Captain America - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 3:38 pm: No surprises in the Illinois poll. My feeling is that Romney may pick up some traction from an Iowa victory. I still think Thompson is going to be a complete bust. Politicalwire.com has a link to an interesting article in the Washington Post about the possibility of a brokered Democratic convention. This scenario is a potential nightmare for Hilary Clinton, since the majority of Democrats seem to prefer someone other than Clinton. A brokered convention could be a dream come true - Al Gore might emerge as the consensus brokered nominee with Obama as Gore’s VP choice. I prefer an alternative to Hilary because she is the candidate least likely to achieve a landslide Democratic victory. I’m not a huge Gore fan, but many are. I simply prefer Gore to Hilary and would love to see Obama to get the VP nod if he can’t get the Presidential nomination. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 3:43 pm: Every four years starting around this time, national political writers pen stories about the possibility of a brokered convention. - Concerned Citizen - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 3:52 pm: Gee, do you think Blago thought he would be on the list? Just thinking…… - Cassandra - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 4:14 pm: I could be wrong but I doubt Obama would take a VP offer. The only reason to take it would be to be Prez-in-waiting. It’s too risky. After 8 years of Gore or Hillary or even John Edwards making whatever mistake they’re gonna make, and they all make big ones, the country will be ready for another change of party in the exec suite. Electorates are more demanding and more fickle in the internet age. And that may be a good thing. Less back room stuff, although not enough less. I think, for Obama, it’s now or never. For Hillary too. - Squideshi - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 4:33 pm: “My college prof didn’t take any class time talking about the Greens’ role in the political process. Should that cost it 501c3 treatment?” Not initially; but if after a warning from the IRS, the college fails to do anything to ensure that it is acting in a nonpartisan manner, yes. “The University of Illinois is a state institution and is thus exempt from taxes as an extension of the State of Illinois.” As a state institution is it ALSO legally prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity. That only makes the argument stronger. “That said, it would be a gross violation of academic freedom to attempt what you are trying to do.” A state institution does not have the academic freedom to act in a partisan manner, even if in a bi-PARTISAN manner. State institutions enjoy academic freedom only within the realm of acting within a NON-partisan manner. For example, a state university may not allow organization of recognized Democrat and Green student organization but refuse the same opportunity to Republicans. PRIVATE universities have no such restriction; and they are free to engage in partisan political activities, unless of course, they seek to enjoy the privilege of tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. “If the Greens want some respect, they’ve got to win some elections. Come in at 33% in a presidential election, win 3 or 4 Congress critter seats, win some seats in the IL leg or the IL senate, get some judges seated, etc.” Entities such as the Center for State Policy and Leadership make this difficult to do when they conduct surveys and issue publications that give the voters a false impression that Democrat and Republican candidates are the only candidates. It’s similar to entities like the Illinois Radio Network refusing to invite Rich Whitney to participate in a debate, because Blagojevich threatens not to participate if Whitney is included, and then allowing tax-exempt FCC licensed broadcasters to rebroadcast the debate (This qualifies as “making any agreement” with any other party that has the effect of denying equal opportunity to all qualified candidates for the same public office, in violation of FCC regulations.) It’s not any one of these omissions that is fully responsible for helping bolster the Democrat and Republican parties, at the expense of the Green Party; but the aggregate effect of all of the omissions, and most unfortunately, the parties involved only seem to start showing interest in complying with the law when facing actual threat. “Squid, have any of your candidtaes even filed federal paperwork to run yet?” Candidates aren’t REQUIRED to file until they receive contributions or make expenses in excess of $5000. The only filing deadline that should matter is the filing deadline to get onto the ballot here in Illinois; and that is November 5th, 2007–until that time we don’t officially know who all of the candidates are; so an entity wanting to remain non-partisan must have a good set of clear, objective criteria, justifying in a legal sense why they would need exclude the candidates of only one party. We KNOW that the Democrat and Republican candidates haven’t yet filed to get onto the ballot because they can’t even legally do it until October 29th, 2007. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 4:49 pm: Squid, as a practical and sane matter, if none of your candidates has yet spent even $5,000 then they aren’t candidtes. Period. They’re wannabes who think they’re candidates. You’ve lost even more credibility here today with this ridiculous threat. - archpundit - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 5:01 pm: ===As a state institution is it ALSO legally prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity. That only makes the argument stronger. Let’s start real simple here. The IRS cannot regulate the federal tax status of a state run institution. So complaining to the IRS is about as effective as complaining to the Small Business Administration. It’s a bit hard to take you seriously when you want to complain to the IRS about something they have no control over. ===As a state institution is it ALSO legally prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity. That only makes the argument stronger. Except it isn’t partisan political activity. Partisan political activity is advocating for the election of a candidate or party. By your definition, if I were an economics professor and conducted a study that found a policy that happens to be supported by one party or the other was not effective, under your conditions, that it has some tangential effect on partisan politics does not make it a partisan study. It makes a it a study relevant to the world around them. ===PRIVATE universities have no such restriction; and they are free to engage in partisan political activities, unless of course, they seek to enjoy the privilege of tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Which almost all of them are. And so your understanding of the issue is pretty poor again. Such a rule would require every study conducted with any public university resources and any private university resources to include every possible party no matter how irrelevant. It’s also really silly because it is completely contrary to the law regarding both state university activities allowed under academic freedom and 501(c)3 rules regarding what constitutes partisan political activity. Performing research that does not advocate for the election of a party or candidate is allowed under either rule and even then it could only include, what is the approval rating of Congressman Z or Candidate A because it’s research in the real world and not research in the imaginary world of people who swear to be relevant, but cannot produce evidence of that relevance. Producing a poll that reflects the standing of Presidential candidates isn’t advocating anything. It is attempting to examine public opinion. If someone wants to argue it was inadequate, they are free to challenge it in the literature and provide some evidence that the methodology was suspect. People have actually examined the impact of third parties like the Greens and mostly they absent from public attitudes because no matter how much some people protest, they are a small group of people who primarily get attention when people use them as a protest vote. You are asking researchers to put aside the entire literature on polling regarding third parties and their impact and astronomically increase the cost of their surveys for findings that have been confirmed time and time again. Worse, you are trying to make a legal argument that is laughable and based on petitioning an organization that has no authority. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 5:04 pm: What Larry said. Squid, you’ve exposed yourself as an ignorant authoritarian. You want the government - the IRS even - to play the role of thought police. - Squideshi - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 5:18 pm: “Squid, as a practical and sane matter, if none of your candidates has yet spent even $5,000 then they aren’t candidtes. Period. They’re wannabes who think they’re candidates.” Rich, we have different opinions about that. That’s fine–I respect your opinion. (I know that the way Greens tend to run campaigns, with very little actual financing, and relying primarily on volunteer effort, is a radical idea to most.) I’m not talking about opinions, however–I am talking about the law. Candidates should, and do, have the right to legally be considered candidates, regardless of how they intend to run their campaigns or with what amount of money. In addition, there is nothing that says that these candidates will NOT eventually spend or receive at least $5000–perhaps they’ll get a large transfer from the national party’s consolidated campaign committee or from the various state parties. Heck, it wasn’t that long ago that one single individual gave the state party about $10,000 in one sitting. When it comes time for state entities to determine who is, and who is not a candidate, that decision should not be left up to the whim of sometimes partisan state bureaucrats–it should be an a matter of objective law, settled well in advance. In the State of Illinois, you are are officially a candidate when you file to have your name placed on the ballot; and that means, currently, by law, the Democrat and Republican candidates are no more candidates than the Green Party candidates. It may be ok for private entities to speculate about who does or does not make a credible candidate; but it is NOT appropriate for a nonprofit, tax-exempt, state institution to do the same. I thought that should be fairly obvious. As far as loosing credibility, I’m not really concerned with attempting to “maintain” credibility. I try speak the truth, as I see it; and anyone is free to disagree with me. I also try to be as honest and consistent as possible, and I try to openly admit mistakes when I make them. Of course, I’m not perfect–I’m human; so the best that I can do is to make a good effort. Maybe “threat” isn’t the best word. “Threat” implies that I am going to do something UNLESS the other party agrees to do something else. If it was a threat that I had intended, it would have been directed to the Survey Research Office–the people who can actually respond to such a threat–rather than just posted on your blog (where there is no guarantee that they will even see it.) My decision whether or not I would file any complaint would be independent of any quid pro quo–posting the comment here was really just a way of expressing frustration more than anything else. - archpundit - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 5:27 pm: ===It may be ok for private entities to speculate about who does or does not make a credible candidate; but it is NOT appropriate for a nonprofit, tax-exempt, state institution to do the same. I thought that should be fairly obvious. No. It’s a complete mish-mash of the law and you don’t appear to be getting why. Academic freedom allows one to make methodological choices based on the best science, not on claims of being important. Science is a public process and people can challenge that methodology, but the methodology the UofI used here is consistent with best practices. If you want to tear down academic freedom and that is your position, you are probably going to anger pretty much the people who are most likely to agree with you that there are too few choices for voters. It’s an interesting electoral strategy, but perhaps more revealing than you thought. With the standard you have suggested, you might as well join in with David Horowitz and his hordes who are trying to intimidate academics for nothing more than doing their jobs and doing them well in many cases. Do you think academic freedom shouldn’t exist? - archpundit - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 5:31 pm: But more importantly, a 501(c)3 non-profit is not stopped from making choices in what they poll. They are forbidden from advocating directly in an election and somewhat limited in terms of political advocacy on issues though those lines are far blurrier. You are simply wrong on the law for both state institutions and non-profits. The law is clear that express advocacy is the limitation, not a tangential effect on partisan politics. Making the case weaker is your claim is one that doesn’t have any empirical evidence to support it and a Court would look at that as silly even if the rest of the legal theory held any water. - Squideshi - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 5:48 pm: “Let’s start real simple here. The IRS cannot regulate the federal tax status of a state run institution. So complaining to the IRS is about as effective as complaining to the Small Business Administration. It’s a bit hard to take you seriously when you want to complain to the IRS about something they have no control over.” First, it hasn’t really been established that the Center for State Policy and Leadership IS an inseparable part of the University of Illinois at Springfield. It may be AFFILIATED with the university but nonetheless operate quasi-independently. (For example, it hasn’t even yet been established what percentage of funding the Center receives from the university or what its governance structure is.) There are a LOT of factors to be taken into consideration before determining that the IRS can’t take action. The truth is that neither you nor I know for sure without having all these details; and since the Center doesn’t readily post them on their website, it’s MUCH easier just to file a complaint and let the IRS sort it all out. In other words, you may be right–the IRS may NOT be able to do anything; but there is absolutely nothing to lose on this side other than time, plus it’s a just hassle that the Center probably doesn’t want or need to deal with, so it suddenly becomes easier just to include all the established party candidates in each survey. “Except it isn’t partisan political activity. Partisan political activity is advocating for the election of a candidate or party.” That’s not how the IRS defines it. What you’re talking about is what the IRS would call DIRECT intervention, but there is also something called INDIRECT intervention, which includes things like failing to invite all qualified candidates to speak at a public forum. The IRS even goes so far to say that if a voter guide is WORDED in such a way as to ask only questions that are favorable to one candidate over another THAT is intervention. “Such a rule would require every study conducted with any public university resources and any private university resources to include every possible party no matter how irrelevant.” No. It would require private universities who ELECT to enjoy the privilege of tax-exempt status to provide equal treatment to all candidates for the same office IN THE SAME CLASS. For example, they need not include new party candidates, if the study includes only established party candidates; but if they’re doing a survey about established party candidates, they can’t make a class distinction based upon political party–that’s partisan rather than objective in nature. “Producing a poll that reflects the standing of Presidential candidates isn’t advocating anything.” Again, it may not be DIRECT intervention; but arbitrary omission is a form of INDIRECT intervention, which is equally as prohibited. Here are 21 different specific examples of intervention and non-intervention provided by the IRS. Let me just point out a couple of examples of the TYPES of things that can be a factor in determining of an organization has engaged in prohibited intervention: “…whether the questionnaire used to solicit candidate positions or the voters guide itself shows a bias or preference in CONTENT or STRUCTURE with respect to the views of a particular candidate.” “…a forum for candidates could be operated in a manner that would show a bias or preference for or against a particular candidate. This could be done, for example, through biased questioning procedures.” “…activities conducted in a biased manner that favors (or opposes) one or more candidates is prohibited.” “Whether the organization provides an equal opportunity to participate to political candidates seeking the same office…” “…an organization that invites one candidate to speak at its well attended annual banquet, but invites the opposing candidate to speak at a sparsely attended general meeting, will likely have violated the political campaign prohibition, even if the manner of presentation for both speakers is otherwise neutral.” “Whether each candidate is given an equal opportunity to present his or her view…” “Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition…” “A statement can identify a candidate not only by stating the candidate’s name but also by other means such as showing a picture of the candidate, referring to political party affiliations, or other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography.” “A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or VOTING in a specific upcoming election.” - southern illinoisan - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 5:48 pm: Governor Huckabee is an excellent choice for true conservatives. He may not fare well in Illinois, but he will be in the race longer than some of the pundits expect. - amy - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 5:50 pm: i don’t care what the Illinois poll says…. Obama, the gutless wonder, DID NOT VOTE on the phony controversy re MOVE On. absolutely incredible. I am in total shock that our senator did not take the time to make a vote. he does not deserve a vote for President. To sit out a vote on free speech when the Republicons paint MOVE on as unpatriotic makes Obama unqualified to be President. Dodd and Hillary were on the right side of the vote. Where was Barack?!? Absent…. - plutocrat03 - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 5:54 pm: Ops I meant not viable candidates in the last post , sorry - Squideshi - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 5:56 pm: “Do you think academic freedom shouldn’t exist?” I believe in academic freedom but do NOT believe that state institutions acting in a partisan manner, even if merely bi-PARTISAN, should be included within the confines of academic freedom. Academic freedom is not an absolute–academics do not have the “freedom” for example to intimate, extort, make death threats, etc. There ARE limitations to academic freedoms, and this includes compliance with laws such as the Internal Revenue Code or state law prohibiting state entities from acting in a partisan manner. Perhaps the question YOU are trying to ask is should a claim of academic freedom excuse academics from having to comply with provisions found in various other laws. I would say no. - Squideshi - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 5:57 pm: intimate = intimidate - archpundit - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 6:21 pm: ===First, it hasn’t really been established that the Center for State Policy and Leadership IS an inseparable part of the University of Illinois at Springfield. It may be AFFILIATED with the university but nonetheless operate quasi-independently. (For example, it hasn’t even yet been established what percentage of funding the Center receives from the university or what its governance structure is.) The amount of funding is irrelevant. I’ve worked in just such a unit where we generated our own money. Not surprisingly, we were under the control of the Chancellor and were considered part of the University because, we were, in fact, a part of the university just as they are. The ED reports to the Provost. What else do you need to know? ===There are a LOT of factors to be taken into consideration before determining that the IRS can’t take action. The truth is that neither you nor I know for sure without having all these details; and since the Center doesn’t readily post them on their website, it’s MUCH easier just to file a complaint and let the IRS sort it all out. They do, it’s called their Annual Report. Filing a complaint without understanding the first thing about the subject is simply harassment and a waste of taxpayer time and money. ===In other words, you may be right–the IRS may NOT be able to do anything; but there is absolutely nothing to lose on this side other than time, plus it’s a just hassle that the Center probably doesn’t want or need to deal with, so it suddenly becomes easier just to include all the established party candidates in each survey. So you think harassing a public institution acting within the law to do something contrary to best scientific practices is reasonable? I’ve been through this with several organizations. You couldn’t be more confused about the law. From the IRS: “In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not constitute prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.” You don’t seem to grasp that they are talking about direct intervention. Publishing a voter guide depends upon whether the evidence is that it is intended to advantage a party or a candidate, not whether it might incidentally do so. The case was the Christian Coalition where the IRS made the point that if the violation came because they were specifically pushing people to vote for particular candidates. The argument was specifically that it was direct intervention in the race. The obvious counter example are that most of the major think tanks in DC are 501(c)3s and they aren’t considered to be engaged in partisan advocacy because they advocate for ideas, not for particular candidates or parties. Incidentally those ideas might benefit one candidate or party, but that is not the intent of the actual activity. This is all settled law. You are woefully uniformed and apparently willing to threaten a public institution with harassment to do what you want regardless of the impact on the quality of work and academic freedom. That’s inexcusable for someone who claims to be progressive. - archpundit - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 6:28 pm: ====#Perhaps the question YOU are trying to ask is should a claim of academic freedom excuse academics from having to comply with provisions found in various other laws. I would say no. Here’s your problem. You haven’t shown that even if it were a 501(c)3 that the Center violated any tax law or regulation. You are arguing completely counter to the leter of the law and the case law for 501(c)3s. You have created some imaginary connection in your head that polling some candidates is advocating for those candidates or parties. You would have to demonstrate that connection if you were to make a legitimate complaint and it cannot be done. The simple answer to it is that the literature supports the inclusion of the major candidates as a more reliable and accurate manner to poll. The addition of too many candidates confuses respondents and they tend to give less accurate and reliable answers. This is demonstrated in the literature. The purpose of the exclusion is that you get more accurate results. Hence, the intent and effort is clear and even if it was a 501(c)3 there is no violation. - archpundit - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 6:29 pm: ===i don’t care what the Illinois poll says…. Obama, the gutless wonder, DID NOT VOTE on the phony controversy re MOVE On. absolutely incredible. I am in total shock that our senator did not take the time to make a vote. he does not deserve a vote for President. To sit out a vote on free speech when the Republicons paint MOVE on as unpatriotic makes Obama unqualified to be President. Dodd and Hillary were on the right side of the vote. Where was Barack?!? Absent…. You did see his statement, right? He was there, but refused to take place in a joke of a vote. Too bad others didn’t join him. - amy - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 6:37 pm: so that’s why he voted on another resolution, the Boxer resolution? See, Barack has a history of being absent. he’s playing it too cute. - Squideshi - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 7:07 pm: “The amount of funding is irrelevant.” No. It is not. It’s a factor in control. “The ED reports to the Provost. What else do you need to know?” For one, even though the ED may technically report to the Provost, exactly how much freedom the ED has been given to operate independently. Reporting is separate from control. One can be required to “report” to an entity without being subject to significant control of it. These are important details that require further research. “They do, it’s called their Annual Report. Filing a complaint without understanding the first thing about the subject is simply harassment and a waste of taxpayer time and money.” Well, I guess we disagree there on two points. First, I don’t agree that I don’t understand the first thing about the subject; and second, I wouldn’t consider putting pressure on a state institution to act in a nonpartisan manner either harassment OR a waste of taxpayer money. “So you think harassing a public institution acting within the law to do something contrary to best scientific practices is reasonable?” Again, I do not consider this harassment. Second, it has not been established that they were acting within the law–that’s only YOUR opinion. The compliant process itself provides a mechanism where the level of compliance can be legally determined; and the IRS is in a MUCH better position to do this than I, considering they they have the ability to compel the institution to provide certain information that I can not. If the IRS thinks that they are in compliance then the Center has nothing to worry about. Simple. “On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.” (a) Excluding the Green candidates favors the Democrat and Republican candidates over the Green candidates. Not only does it imply that the Democrat and Republican candidates are somehow more credible than the Green candidates, it also provides the Democrat and Republican candidates with free “exposure” to the electorate, while depriving the Green candidates of the same. (b) It can be argued that excluding the Green candidates “opposes” them in some manner. (c) Excluding the Green candidates definitely has the EFFECT of favoring a group of candidates–it favors the Democrat and Republican candidates, for some of the same reasons mentioned in (a) above. “You don’t seem to grasp that they are talking about direct intervention.” Both direct AND indirect intervention are prohibited and that’s explicitly stated throughout the IRS website. Do you disagree with that? “Publishing a voter guide depends upon whether the evidence is that it is intended to advantage a party or a candidate, not whether it might incidentally do so.” This is irrelevant, as it hasn’t been determined that the Center didn’t intend to disadvantage the Green candidates (The onus is upon them to demonstrate that they had clear, fair, and objective inclusion standards, established well in advance. As it stands now, absolutely NO reasoning for candidate inclusion is provided.) Even if this were relevant, you are wrong–it is not the INTENTION that matters–it is the EFFECT. This is demonstrated by the very examples given by the IRS. (Did you actually read those examples? It is clear that there are cases in which the entity did not INTEND to violate the prohibition, yet ended up doing so nonetheless.) Tax-exempt organizations voluntarily choosing to engage in this type of activity would be well advised to structure their procedures so as to not accidentally engage in campaign intervention. Personally, this is why I favor a simple warning for a first offense–anyone can make a mistake with such a complicated set of rules, but there is no excuse for making the same mistake twice. “The obvious counter example are that most of the major think tanks in DC are 501(c)3s and they aren’t considered to be engaged in partisan advocacy because they advocate for ideas, not for particular candidates or parties.” Issue advocacy is specifically exempted for the purposes of determining intervention. It is NOT a good example. If issue advocacy were not exempted, these organizations WOULD be guilty of engaging in prohibited campaign intervention; but this is a moot point because issue advocacy IS exempted. “This is all settled law.” Perhaps, but we disagree as to how. “You are woefully uniformed and apparently willing to threaten a public institution with harassment to do what you want regardless of the impact on the quality of work and academic freedom.” Harassment? Are you now accusing ME of committing some sort of crime? I beg to differ, sir. Impact on the quality of work? In my opinion the quality of the work is already low, as it has failed to include 33% of the political parties participating in the race surveyed. I’m more concerned with the state showing an institutional bias toward the Democrat and Republican parties, at the expense of all others, regardless of their legal status or achievements. THAT is the more important issue in play here to me. Again, could just be a difference of opinion, and that’s fine. “That’s inexcusable for someone who claims to be progressive.” I expect government to act in a nonpartisan manner when it comes to elections, and I believe that working to help ensure that is progressive. Nonetheless, I don’t really know what you mean by “progressive” anyway. Yes, I have heard a lot of Greens referring to themselves as progressive; but in my opinion, this label is just about as useless as “liberal” and “conservative”. It serves better to divide people than it does to unite them. I’m more interested in what positions candidates actually hold; and certainly all Greens do not hold the same positions on the same issues (What we DO do is share a common set of 10 Key Values, from which the platform is ultimately derived.) I think it’s time for people to stop trying to pigeonhole the Green Party as a “leftist” party more liberal than the Democratic Party. I mean, come on, Rich Whitney supported concealed-carry. Is that a position that you consider “liberal”? I think there are a lot of other positions that might also surprise you, like the party’s support for small, decentralized government; and generally holding the line on taxes. The political spectrum isn’t a simple left and right line, like some pundits like to think it is. - Squideshi - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 7:19 pm: “You have created some imaginary connection in your head that polling some candidates is advocating for those candidates or parties.” The IRS has stated, “For purposes of section 501(c)(3), intervention in a political campaign may be subtle or blatant. It may seem to be justified by the press of events. It may even be inadvertent. The law prohibits all forms of participation or intervention…” In a 1986 ruling, the IRS indicated that “all legally-qualified candidates” must be invited to participate in candidate forums and debates. Under certain circumstances, a 501(c)(3) MAY exclude particular candidates from a forum, if they fail to meet REASONABLE, OBJECTIVE criteria established by the 501(c)(3) organization for participation in the event. “The crucial factor in this regard is that 501(c)(3) organizations must develop reasonable, objective criteria for participation in candidate forums.” According to the IRS, these criteria must be established PRIOR to planning the event; and a candidate may only be excluded from a forum if he/she fails to meet such pre-determined objective criteria. In EVERY case, the SPONSORING ORGANIZATION MUST DEMONSTRATE that the candidate is not being excluded because of his/her beliefs or party affiliation. The same standard applies to inclusion in surveys, written statements, and publications; and as far as I can see, the Center had no preexisting, reasonable, and objective inclusion criteria–the exclusion of the Green party candidates appears to be merely subjective, based on nothing more than opinion regarding viability or credibility. Incidentally, I am not the only who who believes this. National organizations like Open Debates have also filed similar complaints. - Squideshi - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 7:36 pm: Ok. I tire of this debate, and deliver my final devastating blow in the following format. - archpundit - Thursday, Sep 20, 07 @ 10:21 pm: ===“The amount of funding is irrelevant.” ===No. It is not. It’s a factor in control. Again, I’ve worked for a very similar unit. It is irrelevant in this case because the unit only exists as a unit of the university. It is the same as an extension service that charges for some service, but is still the State of Illinois. This is settled and has been for 50 years at least. When I tell you I know the law in this area, it’s experience talking. Not harassment? Let’s quote what you said: “===In other words, you may be right–the IRS may NOT be able to do anything; but there is absolutely nothing to lose on this side other than time, plus it’s a just hassle that the Center probably doesn’t want or need to deal with, so it suddenly becomes easier just to include all the established party candidates in each survey.” You don’t care if you don’t know what you are talking about, you don’t have anything to lose, and it might just pressure someone to do something to get rid of you. I’d call that harassing someone. ==Both direct AND indirect intervention are prohibited and that’s explicitly stated throughout the IRS website. Do you disagree with that? Yes, and so does the IRS http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=170946,00.html Engage in legislative advocacy LTD Engage in candidate election advocacy NO Engage in public advocacy not related to legislation or election of candidates YES You don’t grasp what the case law has made very, very clear. It is if your actions are advocating for a candidate or specific legislation then it is prohibited. That is direct action and it can be disguised in the form of a voter guide trying to influence people without being clear. That is the Christian Coalition case and why they had to change their tax status. It’s settled case law–not my opinion–settled case law. Performing an activity that doesn’t advocate for a specific candidate or legislation is not a direct action of advocacy. It may have some tangential impact on an election, but it is not advocacy. Advocacy is prohibited, not research or education. All that said–it’s the State of Illinois and not a 501(c)3 status. Don’t believe me? Look up their 990s. You won’t find any. - Squideshi - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 9:56 am: “All that said–it’s the State of Illinois and not a 501(c)3 status. Don’t believe me? Look up their 990s. You won’t find any.” I actually already called the IRS some time ago to “verify” their tax-exempt status, so I know exactly where they stand “on record”; however, they does NOT mean that they are appropriately classified as a state institution–like I said before, it all depends on the actual circumstances of funding and governance. It is possible than an organization can “masquerade” as part of a state institution; but it’s not making the claim that determines this–it’s the actual facts of the circumstance in question; and as I said before, I don’t have all those details, and the IRS is in a MUCH better position to investigate them. I want to make it clear that I am not claiming that that the Center IS misclassified as an inseparable part of a state institution–only that it is possible that such a situation could exist. It is more of an academic argument than anything else–not an actual claim of what is or is not. In any case, we have already determined that even if they are NOT a 501(c)(3) and are exempt as a result of being part of a state institution, they are still prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity. The only disagreement we seem to have is if arbitrary omission of all qualified candidates of one political party, in the same class, for the same office, in a survey amounts to prohibited indirect political campaign intervention, according to IRS rules. I suggest that we simply agree to disagree on that point and move on. It is actually somewhat of a moot point, as the IRS rules do not apply when attempting to determine if a state institution has engaged in prohibited partisan political activity, under state law, which would be the applicable law if the Center IS properly classified as part of a state institution, as you argue. The question then properly becomes, what is the standard for determining if a state institution has engaged in prohibited partisan political activity, according to state law? It is clear that omission can fall into this category, as several election authorities have gotten into trouble for failing to equally include all qualified candidates or parties, within the same class, in their publications. In the current instance, your argument seems to be that “academic freedom” excuses the institution from complying with a standard to which other entities of the state are normally held. I am willing to listen to that argument, but you need to show me WHERE specifically academics are given that exemption. I personally do not believe it exists; and if it does not, they are just as bound to equally include all qualified candidates in the same class, as are other state institutions in their publications. As I said before, the Center seems to have used no pre-existing, reasonable, and objective criteria in order to determine inclusion–the decision appears to be merely based on political party affiliation of the candidates. They have not demonstrated any compelling state interest; and I do not believe that an argument that adding the Green candidates to the survey would have created an undue burden upon the Center would be very compelling in a court of law. The additional cost would most likely be extremely negligible. Plus, such an inclusion would be likely to IMPROVE the quality of their survey, as their results will now be skewed (Voters who will actually request a Green primary ballot have been asked to choose between only Democrat and Republican candidates, so their responses do not accurately represent the support that Democrat and Republican candidates will actually receive on primary election day.) - M.V. - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 10:04 am: > ignorant authoritarian Rich, this kind of name calling is extremely unbecoming. If nothing else, it says that you don’t have a good argument against the points Squid raised. I haven’t checked the FEC, but even if all Green candidates HAD filed all their paperwork and spent $5000, you know as well as I do that the Greens would have been left out of the poll anyway. That’s been the history of these pollsters, and it is extremely damaging to third parties and independents. Also, it’s absurd to suggest that calling people at home and telling them the names of candidates for president and asking them which ones they like is not a political activity. The only way UIC can get away with is by making it a nonpartisan political activity, which they have an obligation as a public institution to do. That means coming up with a fair methodology for who they include and who they do not include. The question is, and I think Squid is absolutely correct in calling them out, what is the methodology they used to exclude the Green Party? There doesn’t seem to be one, except the notion that “oh, the Green Party can’t win anyway”. But that begs the question, why then include Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Tommy Thompson — WHO DROPPED OUT OF THE RACE!!! The general consensus seems to be that none of these people have any prayer of winning their primaries, and if you match any two of them in the general, an independent candidate like Michael Bloomberg or Al Gore would EASILY cruise to victory. Finally, what is the big deal about including third party candidates in a poll? Will people’s head explode if you tell them there are other parties besides the two? Will the economy collapse? Will babies die? To those arguing the validity of this poll, I beg you: Give me a break. - archpundit - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 10:22 am: ===Also, it’s absurd to suggest that calling people at home and telling them the names of candidates for president and asking them which ones they like is not a political activity. The only way UIC can get away with is by making it a nonpartisan political activity, which they have an obligation as a public institution to do. That means coming up with a fair methodology for who they include and who they do not include. Again, read the IRS rules on what constitutes advocacy. This isn’t difficult to understand. Pollsters also allow free responses to such questions and in those cases where there is some sort of support for alternative parties, they pick it up there. They can then poll the next time to see if it matters. If you notice John Cox isn’t included in any poll and that’s because he doesn’t register and only makes the polling less accurate. Academic research isn’t required to include all possible alternatives because of some theoretical benefit to some group that has its panties in a bunch. Instead of arguing about a poll, organize. Or perhaps we have discovered a big part of the problem. - archpundit - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 10:25 am: ===# Finally, what is the big deal about including third party candidates in a poll? Will people’s head explode if you tell them there are other parties besides the two? Will the economy collapse? Will babies die? ==To those arguing the validity of this poll, I beg you: Give me a break. Read the literature. Then we can talk. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 21, 07 @ 10:29 am: I stand by my comment. And that’s it on this ridiculous thread. Go ahead and file away. See what happens. I’ll be watching. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.