Jon, There should be a political "arm" of PG, but have it be a seperate entity. Such entity falls under IRS section 527 (which is why they're called 527 groups). This would protect the tax-exmpt 501(c)3 status of PG. As always, Wikipedia has the low-down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_group Thoughts? -brandon Jon Noring wrote:
Aaron wrote:
Wow! I just read the news letter for this week. It's been a few months since last time. How long has it been this way? When did it go from the news of Project Gutenberg to the blog of Michael Hart? How are quotes on politics relevant to the work of PG? Whether you agree with his politics or not, there are obviously going to be a lot of people who don't.
I think Michael should setup a personal blog -- he has a lot of interesting viewpoints (some of which I agree with, others I don't) that should be shared on the public stage.
What could have possibly made that seem like a good idea? Injecting such hot-button issues into the official Project Gutenberg newsletter gives the impression that we are a political organization and that we as volunteers support those views. Some volunteers might not be all that fond of that idea.
What is our mission here? To give away books, or to give Michael Hart a platform from which to vent his non-ebook related political views?
I have no problem with Michael Hart publishing his politics. I do have a problem with him publishing them on PG stationary.
PGLAF is a 501(c)3 (so I surmise) and 501(c)3 status restricts the organization from direct political activity. For example, advocating that PG volunteers should vote for a particular candidate skirts close (at the minimum) to such disallowed political activity.
I don't know what Michael said, but I think PGLAF, and all those who *may* speak for it in an official status on any forum, should avoid taking any political position (including how some law should be changed, such as copyright law) since that violates the "spirit" of 501(c)3, if not the letter. Certainly Michael has the right, wearing the hat of a private citizen and using his own forum and resources, to give his views. But as soon as he puts on the PG hat, then that drags PGLAF into it (the argument he is not on the PGLAF Board or its payroll, etc., is not sufficient -- PGLAF and all of PG's activities should avoid even the perception of political lobbying -- that's what 501(c)3 is all about.)
What is really needed is to setup a separate organization devoted to the defense and rebuilding of the public domain -- somewhat like the NRA, it would be an "in your face" organization. It would seek the particular IRS non-profit status allowing political lobbying, which is not 501(c)3.
Jon Noring
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d