501(c)3's should be allowed in politics if they disclose their political money

I would like to start off by saying that I did understand my opponents points. My opponent basically stated that because 501(c)3's purpose isn't for politics they should not be able to participate in politics. I responded by saying you can have multiple purposes and that your purpose shouldn't effect wether you can participate in politics and gave the example of a trash truck driver. My opponent then did what I like to call "repetition without refutation". Basically meaning he repeated his argument again with out responding to what I said about his argument. They truth is your purpose shouldn't ever effect what you can and can't do just because there is another group that can do it. It is true that there is organizations made with the purpose of political work however just because someone else can do it doesn't mean you shouldn't have the ability to do it as well. Using my opponents logic again, if I see the need for more doctors but I am currently a plumber then should I never me able to become a doctor because there already are other doctors and I am a plumber and have my purpose as one? No, I should be able to have the ability to become a doctor if I want to and still be a plumber if I choose to. The same is true for 501(c)3's. Just because there are other groups out there that have the ability to be politically involved doesn't mean that we should not allow one group not to be involved because they do something different. It's a form of discrimination which needs to be taken out! My opponent also stated that that 501(c)3's can lobby on stuff directly related to them and that they can form a 501(c)4 underneath them. I will respond to both points starting with the first. It is true that 501(c)3's can lobby (and I congratulate my opponent on finding this point) however my opponent forgot to state that there is a limitation to lobbying. 501(c)3's can only spend 5% of their time and resources on lobbying safely and 15% will jeopardize a tax exemption and any more than 15% will come with an immediate tax exemption revocation. Does that really sound fair? My response to "if 501(c)3's wish to influence elections they may form a 501(c)4 organization" is that of ONLY SOME. It is true that some (c)3's may make a (c)4 organization under them however the process is complicated. Then there are the 501(c)3's that can't become 501(c)4's based on their purpose "Therefore, an organization operating a bingo game could qualify for exemption under IRC 501(c)(3) if its primary purpose is to raise funds for charity but would not qualify under IRC 501(c)(4) because its primary activity is the operation of a business. " . http://www.irs.gov... And lastly on this point there are certain implications to creating a (c)4 under a (c)3. They are listed bellow. "In order for the two organizations to be recognized as legally separate, they must satisfy formalities that indicate they are distinct from one another.17 These formalities generally require the Section 501(c)(3) organization and Section 501(c)(4) affiliate to maintain separate organizational status and conduct all business between each other at arm"s length.177 To determine whether the two organizations are sufficiently separate, courts follow the thrust of the United States Supreme Court"s ruling in Moline Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner.178As a result, courts use the following four requirements.179First, the organizations must be separately organized according to the relevant state"s filing and registration procedures.180 Second, the organizations must keep separate records and bank accounts.181 Third, if the organizations have overlapping paid officers, directors or employees, their time must be sufficiently tracked and allocated to the organization for which the services were rendered.182Finally, the organizations must reasonably allocate shared property and services.183" . http://www.uakron.edu... Some groups can't do this and it is therefor impossible for some (c)3's to make (c)4's. Now I would like to respond to my opponents second argument (free speech). Since we are talking in the real world and wether 501(c)3's should really be involved it is incredibly important to recognize that unless my opponent can disprove what the Supreme Court said, then it is important to see that legally corporations are a single entity and are thus entitled to free speech and press. I would also like to remind my opponent that he never responded to my point that groups have more influence than people. What I meant about unbiased information was that unless (c)3's want to have the possibility of having their tax exemption revoked that they can't publish any thing related to the people up for political office. There was a group that published preferences from unbiased people when they were given unbiased info on candidates. They had their tax exemption revoked.