First off, thank-you to Beth Kanter for bringing this to the collective twitterverse consciousness yesterday.

About a year ago, the IRS ruled on 501(c)3 linking to other sites. 501(c)3 organizations must stay politically neutral--they may not campaign, advocate, or otherwise endorse any political candidate. This means that (c)3s may not print pamphlets, engage in fundraising, and so forth in support of a candidate.

Last year's ruling indicates that because an organization has control over what sites they link to, then the organization is (while the link exists) is forever responsible what is on the linked site.

An organization has control over whether it establishes a link to another site. When an organization establishes a link to another web site, the organization is responsible for the consequences of establishing and maintaining that link, even if the organization does not have control over the content of the linked site.

It goes on to indicate that in order to limit risk, that organization should monitor all linked sites to ensure that they don't cross the IRS rules of non-partisanship.

Because the linked content may change over time, an organization may reduce the risk of political campaign intervention by monitoring the linked content and adjusting the links accordingly.

This kind of ruling simply makes it dangerous for a (c)3 to ever link to an external site because who knows when another site might add or change content. This leaves the (c)3 at risk of losing its designation. I can't think of a single Nonprofit with a Web presence that doesn't link to other sites. This is akin to having been friends with a person in High School--perhaps you exchange holiday cards. This person commits fraud 20 years later and you are held as an accomplice because you know this person.

It is not uncommon for a 501(c)3 to have a wholly independent sister nonprofit designated as a 501(c)4--nonprofits that are focused on an issue or issues. Examples of (c)4s include:

• AARP
• Democratic Leadership Council
• League of Conservation Voters
• MoveOn.org
• National Rifle Association

If a 501(c)3 has a relationship with a (c)4, they may well find themselves not being able to link to an organization that they have strong ties to.

It is also unclear what the implications are for organizations that have Web 2.0 technologies like forums or allow for comments. Is the (c)3 responsible for the user generated content that is posted on those forums? It seems that control over what is on one's own site would have more impact on the nonprofit's compliance than what is on another entity's site. But in many cases the sheer quantity of content that is generated would preclude the organization from being able to monitor the content. It seems that a Web 2.0 savvy 501(c)3 is courting disaster if it uses those tools.

The ruling also has implications on individuals or organizations that aren't 501(c)3 designated. For example, much of what I write is directed towards the non-profit community. I want members of the community to link to my site, specific posts, and so forth. I find myself now, in the unenviable position of having to think twice before writing anything that is partisan towards any candidate even if one candidate clearly supports things important to the nonprofit community. I could find myself censoring what I write to help protect the organizations that I care about.

I am interested in other people's opinions on this. Does this seem fair?