(02-06-2016 10:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 10:54 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 10:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 10:38 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 10:28 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm a corporate attorney that is well versed in this. So, yes.

I don't see Liberty endorsing a political candidate as an issue.

I will take you at your word and say I respectfully disagree. This the first time that I can remember anyone stating that a 501©(3) organizations, that is religious based, has Carte Blanche to overtly pontificate to it's members, who to vote for verbally and in print. As you state you are an attorney, I run a small business, and my experience is not corporate or non-profit law. This just seems contrary to common sense and I'll still take the wager. How long have you been practicing?

I've been practicing long enough.

I'll for real bet $1,000.

Ok. Let's set up a impartial group to be the judge. We'll transfer the funds to an escrow account. I've been in business 43 years. I'm guessing you are new to the legal field. What year did you graduate law school and from where? If you are planning to dish out, be prepared for the outcome.

Cumblerand. Long enough

My positions is simple, an endorsement is freedom of speech, end of story.

From the IRS:
The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501©(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501©(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. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. 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 be 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 © have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

(02-06-2016 10:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In fact, I hope you have some sway at Liberty. I'd love to represent them against the IRS should they decide that their endorsement was a violation.

I have no sway at Liberty other than following their sports program. I am a Lynchburg resident and have followed the school, athletically since it's inception.

I think what you have said has sealed the deal. Like I said, the issue is contributions versus endorsement.

(02-06-2016 11:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think what you have said has sealed the deal. Like I said, the issue is contributions versus endorsement.

In my years of business experience, I've learned when two parties read the same information and draw different conclusions, it's best to agree to disagree. I am going to miss than easy gran you were tossing around so freely <grin>.

(02-06-2016 11:23 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 11:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think what you have said has sealed the deal. Like I said, the issue is contributions versus endorsement.

In my years of business experience, I've learned when two parties read the same information and draw different conclusions, it's best to agree to disagree. I am going to miss than easy gran you were tossing around so freely <grin>.

I don't think this is really fair. There is plenty of authority that already deals with this issue.

(02-06-2016 10:11 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 07:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 06:49 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 06:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 06:12 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  Two points. A private school that is non-profit has restrictions regarding political endorsements. Liberty has skirted that issue in the past, and has begun inviting Democratic candidates seeking offices rather than only Republican as in the past. Hence Bernie Sanders accepting an invite to speak at their convocation. Second point, as a FCS program seeking to become FBS, is this a wise action when desiring to acquire a membership in a conference? Seems really shortsighted and unwise, especially politically with the FBS invite looming like a carrot on a stick for Liberty.

Endorsements and political contributions are two separate cans of worms.

Liberty is free to endorse whomever they wish. If they chose to make political donations there would potentially be an issue.

Not sure what you mean by "contributions" as that is monetary vs. endorsements that are public overtures of support.

"Public overtures of support" are irrelevant.

You can endorse whomever you want as a private institution. Giving money is another issue entirely.

The whole FBS invite issue is yet another thing entirely again.

That is incorrect. There is a rule that restricts a religious, private school endorsing political candidates that can jeopardize their non-profit status. It was Falwell, Jr., as Chancellor, who endorsed Trump. One is tied to the other and it's splitting hairs to say they are separate when they are together.

That's absurd. So you are saying anyone who works high up in a not for profit is denied their constitutional rights to state their opinion? You just don't want anyone you disagree with to be protected by the constitution.

Don't know why people get bent out of shape over others having the same rights they have.

I have no problem with Liberty endorsing Trump. If I was Trump?..Im not sure I would want it.