No. The law only creates a fiscal disincentive to endorsing politicians, but it doesn't prohibit it. This provision is probably there either:
a. to prevent bloggers and politically active newspapers from getting tax-exempt status, which would lead to highly biased news and lowered tax revenues, or,
b. to avoid the risk of politicians forcing newspapers to endorse them or lose tax-exempt status; once you prevent endorsements, you can't try to get endorsements, obviously.
Again though, I find little ground for a 1st Amendment argument against this. You'd have to prove that fiscal disincentives are no different from prohibitions, which is a tough if not impossible sell. Also there are probably no clear legal precedents since courts have tended to lean back and forth over time on this type of issue (where is the edge of the 1st Amendment?) so there are past decisions both for and against.
Slashdot Mirror
No. The law only creates a fiscal disincentive to endorsing politicians, but it doesn't prohibit it. This provision is probably there either: a. to prevent bloggers and politically active newspapers from getting tax-exempt status, which would lead to highly biased news and lowered tax revenues, or, b. to avoid the risk of politicians forcing newspapers to endorse them or lose tax-exempt status; once you prevent endorsements, you can't try to get endorsements, obviously. Again though, I find little ground for a 1st Amendment argument against this. You'd have to prove that fiscal disincentives are no different from prohibitions, which is a tough if not impossible sell. Also there are probably no clear legal precedents since courts have tended to lean back and forth over time on this type of issue (where is the edge of the 1st Amendment?) so there are past decisions both for and against.