IRS: Rebuttals must be allowed on Yecke bio

As I pointed out before, Wikipedia is run by Wikimedia, a 501(c)(3) organization. The IRS says,

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(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. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

However, the IRS allows the following exceptions to the above rule:

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including the presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. (emphasis added)

So the IRS says that Wikipedia's bio of election candidate Cheri Yecke is OK provided that it is presented as a public forum "conducted in a non-partisan manner." This of course means that Wikipedia must allow rebuttals of accusations that the bio makes against her. The truth or falsehood of those accusations is not an issue.

So, "I'm from Missouri" supporters who have Wikipedia user registrations that are four days old or older, I urge you to restore my rebuttal on Cheri Yecke's Wikipedia bio. Even if you don't have a high-speed connection, the restoration takes only about two seconds and two clicks of a mouse if you follow these instructions. You might want to add a statement such as a link to this blog article. Restorations performed in the wee hours of the morning are more likely to last longer. Also, I would appreciate it if you would demand -- either in your editing statement or on the discussion page or both -- that I be unbanned immediately. We've got them on the run -- please let's not stop now.

The IRS rule at the top says, "Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax." So the Wickedpedian control freaks -- now including Wickedpedia cult co-founder "King Jimbo" Wales himself, who has joined the debate -- are playing with fire.
.