I agree with the CPA. The rules about being a 501(c)(4) a pretty clear. The regulations forbid:
"Direct or indirect participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office"
By electing to be a (c)(4) they attempt to show they are non-partisan. However, their public words show otherwise. It may be possible to get their status reviewed fairly quickly and if nothing else force them to register as an advocacy group.
Then as an advocacy group it would be easier to look at 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)and other laws preventing intimidation.
Which violation is easier to prove?
I agree with the CPA. The rules about being a 501(c)(4) a pretty clear. The regulations forbid:
"Direct or indirect participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office"
By electing to be a (c)(4) they attempt to show they are non-partisan. However, their public words show otherwise. It may be possible to get their status reviewed fairly quickly and if nothing else force them to register as an advocacy group.
Then as an advocacy group it would be easier to look at 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)and other laws preventing intimidation.