In the News
Diane Rehm Show: Four Years After Citizens United: The State Of Money In Politics
In January 2010, the Supreme Court handed down their landmark Citizens United ruling, dramatically altering campaign finance in America. The decision allowed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited money directly on politics and it created an explosion in so-called 501(c)(4)s, nonprofits named for where they fall in the tax code. As these organizations have become some of the biggest spenders in politics today, new questions are arising in D.C. and around the country about how — and whether — money in politics should be reined in. Four years after Citizens United: how we pay for politics and the state of campaign finance reform.
Features CCP Chairman Brad Smith
CCP
Oh Bob!
By Brad Smith
But I don’t make those comments – at least not those that would suggest that some intent on the part of the IRS’s career appointees. I do not portray the IRS as a “villain” (Bob’s term characterizing my language) but more as an unfairly used, beleaguered agency.
That brings us to the broader issue. In the op-ed I do note – and this is a matter of record, which Bob doesn’t dispute in the blog post – that the IRS has been under tremendous pressure from elected Democratic officeholders, including several Senators and the White House, and from elements of the so-called reform Community, such as Ryan’s Campaign Legal Center, to take action against non-profits which engage in limited political activity. In many cases this pressure has come with specific exhortations to focus on conservative groups, both generally and specifically. And of course, we still have the IRS scandal from 2013, in which Treasury’s Inspector General concluded that the IRS implemented criteria that directly targeted conservative speakers for tougher tax treatment. Further, we know that an important section head at the IRS has pled the Fifth Amendment, and that the Administration’s initial claim that the improper targeting of conservative groups was the work of rogue careerists in the Cincinnati office of the IRS was not true.
Independent Groups
Washington Post: New IRS commissioner addresses agency challenges
By JOSH HICKS
During the meeting, Koskinen suggested that the IRS’s problematic behavior toward advocacy groups was partly due to confusion about the existing tax-exemption rules and how to apply them. He discussed new guidelines the Treasury Department proposed in November to help the IRS determine which type of activities will disqualify groups from tax-exempt 501 (c) status.
Critics of the IRS, including many GOP lawmakers, have suggested that the agency’s actions were politically motivated. Koskinen said clearer rules about allowable activities for tax-exempt groups, as well as how much those activities are allowed, will help the agency dispel such notions.
“We need as much clarity as possible,” Koskinen said. “If we can get clarity, that’s the way we’ll get the IRS out of this as much as possible.”
Roll Call: Early TV Ads: Not New and Mostly a Waste of Money
By Stuart Rothenberg
• There is so much money available that “outside” political groups, which have exploded in number following changes in the law, don’t know what to do with it. So, they are looking for innovative ways to spend their cash, even if the value is unproven. One consultant put it this way: “Let’s see if we can make something happen by spending early.” Another put it only slightly differently: “With so much money to burn, what the hell?”
• The more “outside” groups and candidates spend early money on TV, the greater the incentive for others to do the same for fear of looking behind the media curve. As one consultant said, “We don’t know if [early TV advertising] works, but we can’t afford not to do it.”
• Spending on campaign TV ads more than a year before an election helps super PACs raise more money. They can point to their ads and show how relevant (and important) they are. The ads generate excitement and interest among potential contributors. So the spending is less about influencing the outcome of an election and more about demonstrating alleged relevance.
Politico: Michael Bloomberg gives $2.5M to Senate Majority PAC
By Josh Bresnahan
Bloomberg, one of the richest men in the world, made the donation to Senate Majority PAC, which is run by former aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other top Democrats. “It arose out of the close relationship the Mayor has developed with Leader Reid over the years working on issues of concern to New Yorkers like [Hurricane] Sandy relief and gun safety,” said Howard Wolfson, former deputy mayor and a close aide.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
TPM: GOP Accuses Clinton Of ‘Fully Coordinating’ With 2016 Super PACs
By Hunter Walker
“Hillary Clinton is trying to have it both ways. While she publicly plays coy about her presidential aspirations she’s fully coordinating with two Super PACs preparing for her candidacy,” RNC Press secretary Kirsten Kukowski told TPM Monday. “Something doesn’t smell right, especially from a Democrat Party that routinely makes transparency pledges.”
The Politico article detailed Clinton’s relationships with her inner circle and two super PACs, Ready For Hillary and Priorities USA, that are dedicated supporting her potential 2016 presidential bid. By law, the super PACs, which are not subject to the same contribution limits as campaign committees, are not allowed to directly coordinate with candidates.
Politico: Trey Radel hires top ethics lawyer
By JOHN BRESNAHAN and ANNA PALMER
The Florida GOP lawmaker who was busted for cocaine possession has hired a top Washington ethics lawyer and parted ways with his crisis communications team.
Rep. Tray Radel, who finished a stint in rehab late last month and is slated to return to Capitol Hill this week, has brought on Wiley Rein’s Rob Walker as an adviser. Walker previously served as chief counsel and staff director of both the Senate and House ethics panels. Radel is facing an investigation by the House Ethics Committee into his drug use.
FEC
Roll Call: Caution – Creative Campaign Bookkeeping in Progress
By Kent Cooper
On December 31st, the Federal Election Commission expected political candidates and committees to close their financial books and file a disclosure report by January 31st. However, committee treasurers are continuing to clean up their records and craft a public relations strategy for when and how to release their results.
The clean up also permits time for a staff person to run a political review of the filing. They may remove early entries that came from impermissible sources, or from sources that may not be politically correct. A contribution that appeared fine in early October may not look the same in January. A donor whose occupation is listed as “hedge fund financier” may be changed to “investment banker,” or a donor listed as “toxic waste company owner” may be changed to “waste mgmt. co. owner.” The same applies to how disbursements are described. Some may change the description of the purpose of the disbursement, such as from “limousine rental” to “car rental.”
State and Local
Arizona –– AP: Arizona lawmakers again targeting state’s public campaign funding program
PHOENIX — Some Arizona legislators again will be trying to put a bull’s-eye on Clean Elections, the voter-approved state program that provides funding for candidates for state offices.
Rep. Paul Boyer, R-Phoenix, plans to reintroduce a proposal to gut the program by asking voters to sweep all of the program’s money into K-12 schools, the Arizona Capitol Times (http://bit.ly/JYeXhT ) reported.
Meanwhile, Rep. J.D. Mesnard said he wants to introduce a resolution for a ballot measure on repealing the program outright. However, the Chandler Republican said he’ll go only so far if program opponents promise support for a campaign aimed at persuading voters to go along.
North Carolina –– Halifax Media: New campaign finance laws raise limits, soften disclosure requirements
By Wes Wolfe
Under the new state elections law that went in effect Wednesday, the maximum contribution to candidates rises from $4,000 to $5,000, and several disclosure provisions will be rolled back. The real effect of the changes is unknown.
“Hard to say at this point until we go through the 2014 election cycle,” said Michael Bitzer, associate professor of politics and history and acting provost at Catawba College. “One of the big questions will be: Will big donors — those who hit the max at $4,000 — increase their donations to $5,000? That may be the real test of the 2014 cycle.”
