Yale Daily News Endorsed a Candidate -Political Campaign Intervention?

By: Philip Hackney, Oct. 31, 2016

Last week the Yale Daily News a college newspaper run by students associated with Yale University endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. While a newspaper endorsing a candidate for president is usually the ordinary course of business, when that newspaper is a section 501(c)(3) organization, its an issue. A charitable organization is absolutely prohibited from intervening in a political campaign.

On Friday October 28, I joined my tax prof friends and many surly bloggers Ben Leff, Sam Brunson, David Herzig and Andy Grewal to discuss in a Sparemin Podcast whether YDN put its exemption at risk or not. We had had a dispute on twitter and decided that a podcast discussion might enhance our understanding of one another’s views. It certainly helped me. Give it a listen yourself. Let us know what you think.

My take: Endorsing a candidate for president is an intervention in a political campaign under section 501(c)(3) period. Additionally, the newspaper is *the* activity of this organization that is incorporated separately from the university it is associated with. The editorial board of that newspaper would appear to be the authoritative voice through which this organization would speak. I would, therefore advise such separately incorporated college newspapers to not endorse candidates because it will put their tax exempt status at risk. However, based on IRS guidance and section 501(c)(3) generally, I argue that there is a defense for YDN, and maybe there is even reason to allow a standalone 501(c)(3) college newspaper to make such endorsements.

The Yale Daily News is a section 501(c)(3) organization that is separately incorporated from the university. While some college newspapers are simply activities of the 501(c)(3) universities that they support, others are separately incorporated. Why are they separately incorporated? My primary guess is that they separately incorporate for liability protection, although it could also be to establish a certain level of journalistic independence for the student newspaper.

How might a standalone newspaper make the case that an endorsement for president does not violate the ban on political campaign intervention? They would do so based on Rev. Rul. 72-513. There the IRS examined a college newspaper that was simply an activity of a much larger university. The question the IRS focused upon was whether editorials and endorsements by the student run newspaper might put the universities tax status at risk. Based on a couple of factors the IRS found that it did not.

The IRS noted that the college paper was serving an educational function for the students. The students were supervised by faculty, but the students decided who or what to endorse or support. Furthermore, the paper was narrowly distributed primarily to the student body. Finally, the activity of endorsing candidates seemed to be something in the ordinary course of the type of things a newspaper might do, meaning that doing endorsements served a legitimate educational function. Now the IRS ultimately seems to conclude that this is not an intervention because we cannot reasonably attribute the act of the endorsement to the university. I think this is a reasonable conclusion under the facts and circumstances test that reigns in this area.

So, our debate focused primarily on whether it was reasonable to extend this reasoning to the standalone college newspaper. I think there are good reasons to allow a similar analysis. The standalone paper likely looks almost exactly like the activity of the university. It certainly looks that way to students and those who read the paper. Presumably, professors still assist and oversee the operations. Presumably the university provides funds for the operation of the standalone organization. Utilizing some of the same reasoning as the IRS, given that college newspapers have long been engaging in these educational efforts it is hard to see why we would treat the two forms differently.

However, it is difficult to apply the reasoning of the standalone version because there is almost no other activity of this organization. Nevertheless, because of the significant educational function of the newspaper and its significant integral connections to the university system, I believe it is possible to view this as not speaking for the organization itself. I would argue that if the president of the organization were to endorse a candidate or maybe tell the students who they should endorse for president, this could be clearly attributed to the organization. However, where the students are carrying out simply an educational activity that is clearly associated with their work with the university that they are affiliated, we should wind up with the same result as we found in the revenue ruling. Their endorsement does not speak for the organization and thus there is no intervention in a campaign.

This is a tough case to make and it leaves us with something that looks like an exception to a rule that is supposed to be absolute. That makes me a bit uncomfortable. Once you admit of exceptions to such a rule, you open up possibilities for abusing the rule. Can it be reasonably limited? I think so. I think it can be limited to the school newspaper situation where students are legitimately making the call of who to endorse, the paper primarily has a scope within the school community, and there is a substantial educational component connected to the associated school.

Still, were I a standalone college newspaper, I would not endorse a candidate without the IRS providing an updated revenue ruling creating an exception for this situation. I am not confident, the case I make here would win the day. I only think it is a reasonable conclusion under all the circumstances.

Andy Grewal has up an excellent post calling my argument into question. You should check that out here. Very much enjoyed the back and forth on twitter and then in a podcast and then in blogposts.

At the end of the day, I believe it unlikely the IRS would go after Yale Daily News. In any case they would have a discussion with the organization and if they found they violated the Code will encourage them strongly to no longer do such endorsements. They might also work out some arrangement under which YDN could continue to endorse candidates without violating the prohibition on campaign intervention.

4 thoughts on “Yale Daily News Endorsed a Candidate -Political Campaign Intervention?

  1. Yale Daily News Endorsed a Candidate -Political Campaign Intervention?

    While I agree there is no derivative exemption for a separately incorporated student run newspaper entity merely because it is associated with a university, I would argue that the student newspaper obtains exemption because its purpose is educational. Importantly, the student newspaper’s primary purpose is to teach students how to operate a newspaper and engage in the profession of journalism.

    This is the same tax law logic that exempts the NCAA and major collegiate organizations that organize basketball and football tournaments. The educational purpose has nothing to do with the audiences or commercial sponsors – the tournaments are part of the collegiate experience important to the instruction of our youth. [alert – I only slightly gagged while writing this last point but that is the tax law logic I believe is applicable.]
    Similarly, the educational purpose of a student run newspaper is not based on instructing the public.

    Therefore, when a student newspaper takes a political stance this is part of the educational experience whether the newspaper is an activity of a college or a separate entity. And I do not believe it is important to find an identity of interests such as might be argued where a college was related to a separate newspaper entity through a supporting organization relationship.

    Another interesting question is whether the newspaper’s reach matters. That is, would a political stance taken by a student run newspaper be any more political if it had a significant web presence rather than if it were circulated through hard copy available on campus. I suppose the newspaper would argue that the size or extent of the audience is irrelevant to its mission. And I would agree with this type of analysis as long as there was no hard evidence that it intentionally expanded its reach for some commercial, political or other nonexempt purpose.

    So, I think i agree with Phil on this one. And I am not telling anyone how to vote in the upcoming election . . . although I will be doing a little happy dance if Hillary should happen to win.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Interesting discussion. It might have helped if the participants had looked at YDN’s Forms 990 before the discussion.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s