I'm not sure how posting at the forum confronts SOS's 501C status. If you post here at the forum, how is it that you represent SOS? If this is a public forum, then opinions expressed here can't represent SOS, even though it is SOS's forum. If it is not a public forum, then how does expressing support for a candidate make SOS as an organization responsible for endorsing a candidate? Members of a 501C organization are going to vote and discuss among themselves who they think people should vote for. This kind of behavior is not representative of the organization itself. It is only when the 501C organization start formally representing a candidate as an organization publicly that I think a violation occurs.

It was the original title that read like it was urging people to support a candidate. We don't want the forum to be used as a medium for partisan or candidate support. Discuss the candidates all you want, but refrain from using the forum as a platform to encourage others to vote for, or contribute to a certain candidate or party.
We placed some of these restrictions on ourselves because the last regime at SOS developed a particular political bent that led to outright ostracism if you expressed an opposing opinion or supported another party or candidate. If we maintain a certain distance from political partisanship we might not experience that again. In addition, we don't want prospective associates and supporters reading the forum titles to get an impression that we are a partisan or candidate specific organization. within the thread content there's a little more leeway for that because it is more apparent that it is the opinion of the individual poster, but again it must stop short of being your prominent agenda for posting here.

That's fine. I don't recall what the original title was. But I don't think it makes much sense to try and tell posters not to have a political bent since opposing some immigration policy and practice is certainly a political bent. It can be no other way. If you want to prevent people from being ostracized for voicing a particular point of view you are bound to be frustrated. If somebody were to come here posting support or sympathy for illegal immigrants, they are bound to suffer some negative responses.

But most importantly, I don't think it is necessary to make reference to SOS's status as a 501C organization in administrating posts at the forum, since the individual opinions of posters should have no effect on that.

I think as we head towards June we had better brace ourselves for discussions on the candidates. What good is a forum like this at a place like this if you can't argue over political candidates?

Watchit, or I'll ban myself on you.

Our aim to be 501C3 does need some consideration on the forum. It's important in that this forum is a publication of our main agenda and work. The main agenda of a 501C3 is charitable work, support, and advocacy for the class of people who are to be the beneficiaries of our effort. If the forum became dominated by partisanship or political candidacy, we might appear to be more of a PAC, and then maybe we might not be considered for grants or contributions from sources who felt that we were misrepresenting ourselves or would not use the funds in a charitable manner.
presenting and discussing candidate backgrounds and current events is most definately good use of the forum. Soliciting funds, posting advertisements, and outright advocating for them is where we start to drift away from charity and towards politics.
It's one thing to post "this candidate says this, and has done that". It's quite another to post "vote for this man/woman, or please send them money".

She's having trouble getting on the ballot!

Coulda seen that one coming a mile away. Really, look at it. If there really was overwhelming support, there would be no problem getting on the ballot. There isn't overwhelming support, nor will there be.

I would have hoped that the goal of Californians would be to prevent the democrats from holding both the legislature and the governorship. When that happens, Californians will be fleeced down to their last ha'penny.

"It's important in that this forum is a publication of our main agenda and work."

But the forum is not anything at all like that. That is precisely what it is not. There are many subjects on this forum that have absolutely nothing to do with SOS. Sports, for example. The forum is for discussions shaped by the subjects iin the various categories posted for the benefits of anonymous registered viewers and posters. It has nothing to do with advocating a particular point of view. Is registering for the forum all that is necessary to become a member of SOS? If so, then all that has to be done to free the forum from that restriction is to remove that qualification.

I don't care if I am a member of SOS. I first came to the SOS forum because I wanted to talk about illegal immigration and immigration in general. That's the only reason. I found the forum by searching Google. If I sympathize with SOS or post advocacy of the organization, it is entirely incidental. None of my opinions should be considered the voice of SOS or some member, they should not be considered advocacy by SOS, just my personal, private opinion. And restricting the ability for me to express support or opposition to some political candidate on this forum seems to me to be an editorial or forum administrative policy and not a legal obstacle. Such restrictions do risk the accusation of political correctness.

There are some very important points to be made in this. First, once again, remember that this June is only a primary election. It is not necessary for Chelene to be in the June primary elections in order for her to be on the November ballot. All that is necessary is that the AIP decide that she is the candidate they want to run. Unless there is some other candidate in the American Independent Party that also wants the AIP's candidacy, then what is point of there being any election between the American Independent Party candidates.

Remember, once again, that the primary elections are not necessary except as an appartus to cloud the political process and subject people more and more to the parasite government institution called the "two party system". Subjecting the AIP to the primaries only reinforces the two party system as it is represented in the primaries. We do not need primary elections. Political parties, like the AIP, should be running their elections for their candidates within the party. If the AIP does not make the primaries, why should they care as long as they can decide who they want to run for the governer's race in November?

Let's get rid of the two party system. Let's get rid of the primary elections. Let the political parties run and pay for their own internal elections.

The forum is pointedly representative of our agenda. While the individual posts are the opinions of the posters, we shape the overall body of the forum. We have certain stated values and rules regarding racial, religious, and political material that are posted here. Someone espousing a racially exclusive philosophy for example, is not something we support, and therefore wouldn't like to see dominating the forum because it might give them the impression that we were a racially based or themed organization. The same applies to political candidacy:
Discuss the material without appearing to espouse it to the point you are advertising or recruiting for them.

We've already stated that discussions about candidates are ok. When the material posted here takes a turn towards advocacy for them it starts to run afoul of our rules. The other sections of the forum that you mentioned such as entertainment, while not pointedly aimed at our effort, are placed there for everyones' use, but we wouldn't like to see any one of them become the main subject or reason people read or posted either.