0
I think that you raise some worthy points, so I hope you'll allow me to clarify my position. I don't fundamentally have a problem with organizations supporting bills that advocate for the interests of their organization as long as they do so in a way that focuses on the issue and not on the candidates themselves. By political parties, I didn't intend for Republican and Democrat to be an exhaustive list. I merely cited them because they are the most common parties and they were the parties that these organizations which I referenced were promoting. It's one thing to support broad principles and say, our advocacy organization supports a free market approach to health care and health savings accounts, and another thing entirely to use your organization to defeat President Obama and run negative ads because you don't like Obamacare, while at the same time funneling tens of millions of dollars to Governor Romney's campaign. It's one thing to say generally, we don't support the principles of the Affordable Care Act and another thing to run ads that are dedicated almost exclusively to tearing down its architect and misleading the American people about what Obamacare does and does not do. I think one is okay, the other, in my opinion, is not, because it is not consistent with being a social welfare organization. It's consistent with being a political organization, and political organizations shouldn't be entitled to game the system by masquerading as social welfare organizations when it suits them and morph into political appendages of campaigns when it does not.