IRS
Bloomberg: IRS May Be Trying to Stop Tax Exemption of Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS
By Richard RubinThe IRS may be trying to block the tax exemption of one of the largest politically active nonprofit groups, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, an organization founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove.The oblique disclosure can be found between the lines of an inspector general’s report released on Thursday, which said that 149 of 160 stalled applications from nonprofits with potential ties to politics have been resolved. Of the other 11, six are in litigation with the IRS — which Crossroads isn’t — and five have received proposed denial letters or are appealing.That suggests that the Internal Revenue Service has sent Crossroads a denial letter. Crossroads is one of the most politically involved nonprofit groups, and its bid for tax exemption is being closely watched by campaign-finance lawyers.
Wall Street Journal: Inspector General Says IRS Fixing Problems Over Scrutiny of Nonprofits
By John D. McKinnonThe report came from the same inspector general’s office that criticized the agency in 2013 for improperly targeting dozens of conservative tea-party groups for lengthy, intrusive review as they sought tax-exempt status.At the same time, the new report underscores the toll that the IRS’s review took on some of the groups involved, starting in 2010.The report found that of the 160 applications that were still open as of late 2012, 149 had been closed by December of 2014. Of those, 22 were open for at least three years, and a handful were open more than four years.
Independent Groups
Wall Street Journal: Roles of Presidential Super PACs Expanding
By Reid J. Epstein and Rebecca BallhausWhen Carly Fiorina announces on Monday that she is running for president, she will do so under the banner of Carly for President. But a different group—an independent super PAC called Carly for America—will handle many of the basic tasks of campaigning, such as identifying and contacting Republican voters.While Ben Carson, another expected Republican presidential candidate, focuses on reaching reliable GOP primary voters, a super PAC is planning a complementary effort focusing on people who need extra persuasion. And a super PAC backing Jeb Bush will have its own data-gathering and press operations.The 2016 election cycle is seeing an expansion not just of super PAC fundraising but of the PACs’ responsibilities. The main reason: Super PACs can accept donations of unlimited size, while donations to candidate campaigns, such as Carly for President, are capped at $2,700 per election. The new arrangement means fewer donors, writing larger checks, can bankroll the basics of electioneering, freeing candidates from having to raise large sums in small increments. But it also raises thorny questions, because super PACs and candidates are barred by the Federal Election Commission from coordinating their strategy and messages.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
SCOTUS Blog: Symposium: When strict scrutiny ceased to be strict
By Floyd AbramsThe actual solicitation that led to Williams-Yulee being sanctioned was a mass mailing, about as impersonal an approach as is imaginable. The Code applies, as well, to ads in newspapers, to requests for contributions, however small, and to solicitations to non-lawyers as well as to individuals who have never been in court or have reason ever to expect to be there. This is hardly the stuff of “narrow tailoring.” But in yesterday’s decision, it was. And it may be again, at least in the context of cases relating to limits on the speech of those who seek to serve as judges.All of this is enough to make First Amendment aficionados wish that the Court had never decided that strict scrutiny applied at all. As a result, the Court’s decision is not only a victory for those who view judicial elections as more than a bit different from other elections, but a potentially significant First Amendment setback in the application of strict scrutiny in the future. That may have troubling impact in other areas of law, with a single exception. Critics of Citizens United can take no solace from yesterday’s decision, since it is rooted in all respects in the difference between judicial elections and all others. If anything, the more the Court focuses on the special and distinct role of judges as opposed to other elected officials, the more firmly it reinforces its earlier ruling as to the latter .
Disclosure
The Hill: Dems demand disclosure of super-PAC donors
By Julian HattemSeventeen House Democrats on Friday introduced the Keeping Our Campaigns Honest Act, which would require new Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations to force political groups to list the names of their “significant donors” when they run advertisements.“The American people are owed a level honesty when it comes to identifying who is trying to influence their vote,” Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the bill’s author, said in a statement. “So long as these individuals are allowed to continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to impact our elections and our democracy, they should also be required to step out into the light and let voters know just who they are.”Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) are among the lawmakers co-sponsoring the bill.
Washington Post: Where the political 1 percent of the 1 percent live, in 5 maps
By Philip BumpIf you look at total contributions by city, San Francisco leads the list, thanks to the generosity of Tom Steyer, the entrepreneur/environmentalist who spent a lot of money in 2014 to not win many races. In second is New York City.
Kochs Obsession
Washington Post: Koch brothers make push to court Latinos, alarming many Democrats
By Mary Jordan and Ed O’KeefePaula Hernandez, 46, an undocumented restaurant supervisor from Mexico, was one of those sitting on folded chairs, listening. She has worked in the United States for 25 years and gave birth to three children here. She has never heard of the Koch brothers or LIBRE but said the free classes were a “great help,” particularly because nobody else is lending her a hand. “President Obama promised to do more for us, and it just didn’t happen,” she said.To Republicans, that sounds like an opportunity — even though the Koch brothers and their conservative allies spend a great deal of their money supporting Republican candidates who oppose citizenship for undocumented immigrants.“Latino celebrities, unions and left-leaning community groups” for decades have done a far better job in courting the Hispanic vote and “engaging directly with the Latino community,” said Daniel Garza, executive director of LIBRE. Now, he said, his group aims to end what he calls the “deafening silence” from “libertarians and conservatives.”
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
NY Times: Hillary Clinton to Jump Start Fund-Raising Efforts
By Maggie HabermanHillary Rodham Clinton had once planned to wait until May to hold her first fund-raising events. But in the last two weeks, she has moved up her schedule, primarily out of concern about Jeb Bush’s extensive super PAC fundraising, according to donors and people in contact with the campaign.She added two fund-raising events in New York and Washington, which quickly morphed into five separate fund-raisers. She also added several events for a West Coast swing next week, to coincide with her first trip to Nevada, one of the early caucus states in the nominating process.
Washington Post: The two issues that would bedevil Lindsey Graham’s campaign
By George F. WillClinton’s aspiration to make the Bill of Rights less restraining on government and less protective of individuals would be accomplished by empowering Congress to legislate what it considers reasonable restrictions on contributions to finance the dissemination of political speech. The Post reports that, in New Hampshire recently, Graham “called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.”Challenged about this, he says he might consider instead undoing the damage he, his friend McCain and other “reformers” have done. Removing limits on contributions to parties (with immediate disclosure on the Internet) would divert the flow of money from super PACs back to the parties, where it once went. Parties should then be able to make unlimited expenditures for, and coordinate with, their candidates, which present law severely restricts. This would make parties more robust and accountable, and campaign political financing more transparent.Super PACs, which Graham regrets as strongly as he needs and desires the backing of one, have been summoned into existence by limits on contributions to candidates and parties. These limits have diverted money into the super PACs that must not “coordinate” with candidates.
