CCP
Letter: Need For Proper Rulemaking Processes and Analyses in Upcoming IRS Proposal
Just over a year ago, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Department of Treasury published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the stated purpose of providing “guidance to tax-exempt social welfare organizations” on candidate-related political activity that would not be considered “to promote social welfare” under IRC §501(c)(4). 78 FR 71535-42, Nov. 29, 2013.IRS now intends to issue a newly-proposed rule as a followup. For the reasons explained below, we are quite alarmed by the Administration’s most recent “Regulatory Agenda” entry regarding this proposed rulemaking, released November 24,2014.
In the News
NPR: Advocacy Groups Tell Lawmakers To Back Off
By Peter OverbyNRDC turned over about 450 emails last month. Investigators have also gotten documents from EPA — and that duplication is what led the three advocacy organizations to object. Washington Director Laura Murphy of the American Civil Liberties Union, Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron and Center for Competitive Politics President David Keating wrote to Issa and Vitter that the letter seems intended to intimidate NRDC “with the heavy hand of Congress.”They urged the lawmakers “to show more sensitivity to the First Amendment right to petition government” and to drop the sweeping request. They said investigators could subpoena agency records and officials and hold hearings, and should focus on the conduct of agency officials, not private citizens.Murphy, Aron and Keating noted that their groups don’t agree — or even have positions — on the carbon and mining issues. The ACLU and AFJ are considered liberal groups; CCP is seen as conservative. The letter went out Wednesday.
Hot Air: Why are we disclosing political donations?
By Jazz ShawMeet the Press host Chuck Todd hosted a short, back and forth pitch on the subject of disclosure of campaign contributions by Meredith McGehee from the Campaign Legal Center and Brad Smith from the Center for Competitive Politics recently. (Short video is below.) McGehee was praising the increased levels of disclosure in the modern era and railing against so called “dark money” in politics. Smith wasn’t exactly taking the opposite stance, but was looking to promote “smart disclosure.” He argued that the current disclosure system was too complicated and cumbersome while pushing for higher thresholds for mandatory disclosure. After watching this debate I was left pondering the same question which springs to mind every time I hear this subject come up. Why are we disclosing campaign donations at all, particularly from individuals?I will start by playing devil’s advocate and say that there is one reason for tracking donations which makes obvious sense to me. We need to be able to identify any obvious quid pro quobetween elected officials and donors. While it’s clearly impossible to entirely eliminate the prospect of people “buying influence” in American politics, the rest of the voters at least deserve the opportunity to find out when it’s going on. But even on that score, it’s difficult to imagine a situation where an elected state or federal official could be significantly influenced to do something which runs counter to the public good for the price tag of $2,500.
National Law Journal: Objections to Issa and Vitter’s Request for Lobbying Docs
By Andrew RamonasThe Natural Resources Defense Council and other members of the private sector shouldn’t receive government requests for internal papers on their advocacy unless no other options exist to get the documents, the American Civil Liberties Union, Alliance for Justice and Center for Competitive Politics wrote in a letter on Thursday to the members of Congress.
Wisconsin
Wall Street Journal: Wisconsin Targets the Media
EditorialThe Wisconsin assault on political speech has been in a lull, but it reappeared with a bang on Friday with a fresh document release by a state court. The disclosures include evidence that Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board wanted to go after Milwaukee radio host Charlie Sykes and Sean Hannity of Fox News.The information was unsealed as part of a complaint in Eric O’Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth v. Wisconsin Government Accountability Board. The case is a complaint against the GAB, a state body that has made enforcing campaign-finance laws its mission in ways that trash the First Amendment.
Wisconsin Reporter: ‘Outside the … law’: Lawmakers call for investigation of GAB
By MD KittleState Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and state Rep. Dean Knudson, R-Hudson, in a joint statement called the allegations of abuse of power at the GAB “shocking.”“As we’ve said all along and as was exposed in last week’s non-partisan audit, the staff at GAB repeatedly operated outside the bounds of the law and board control,” the lawmakers said. “The Legislative Audit Bureau’s report found the GAB did not follow laws and procedures, and staff has failed to follow the directives of the six former judges who preside over the ‘nonpartisan’ board.”A previously sealed brief made public Friday tells a similar story.
Wisconsin Reporter: Rogue agency defied judges to carry out partisan probe of Wisconsin conservatives
By MD KittleMADISON, Wis. – Agents for the embattled state Government Accountability Board continued a zealous campaign finance investigation into dozens of conservative groups even after judges who preside over the board voted to shut it down, according to a previously sealed brief made publicFriday.The documents, from an updated complaint filed by conservative plaintiffs in a case against the GAB, appear to support claims that the campaign finance, ethics and election law regulator is a rogue agency. They also show that the GAB considered using the state’s John Doe law to investigate key state conservatives and even national figures, including Fox News’ Sean Hannity and WTMJ Milwaukee host Charlie Sykes.Wisconsin Reporter also obtained some of its information from previous court documents that were supposed to have been redacted.
Wisconsin Reporter: GAB won’t say whether it has reauthorized its role in John Doe probe
By MD KittleCritics of the GAB’s role in the investigation said the spokesperson’s non-response about reauthorization raises questions over whether the GAB violated the laws that govern it may and overreached its authority in the probe.One critic, an attorney close to the legal challenges to the John Doe case now before the state Supreme Court, said Magney’s claims to secrecy are absolutely wrong. The court has agreed to take up three challenges to the investigation, and may ultimately decide whether the way the probe was conducted was legal and whether the prosecutors violated the First Amendment rights of conservative targets.The GAB apparently “believes that statutory secrecy exists to protect it from public oversight,” said the attorney, who asked not to be identified due to his proximity to the cases. “But that is upside down. Secrecy exists to protect subjects of an investigation, who may have done no wrong, not the bureaucrats investigating them.
Independent Groups
Wall Street Journal: A California Assault on Free Speech That Would Shock the Founders
By Tim Phillips and David Spady‘Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”Benjamin Franklin’s warning is perhaps more apt today than at any point in American history. In the past four years, the Democratic Party and the progressive movement have been dealt devastating losses at the ballot box, in large part because voters rejected their policies as violations of fundamental liberties.Yet rather than debate the merits of their policies, many on the left responded with a coordinated campaign to suppress free speech—primarily by intimidating, demonizing and silencing the people who opposed and defeated them. Examples include the Internal Revenue Services’ targeting of conservative nonprofit groups, Senate Democrats’ recent attempt to write a new constitutional amendment that would gut the First Amendment, and a host of other anti-free-speech efforts at both the state and federal level.Our organizations, Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit advocacy group that mobilizes grass-roots activists to support or oppose specific legislation and hold lawmakers accountable, and Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which educates citizens about the benefits of free-market policies, have been among the left’s primary targets.
FEC
Sacramento Bee: Telegrams, typewriters, vitriol and politics in the Internet age
By Dan Morain
“Some of my colleagues seem to believe that the same political message that would require disclosure if run on television should be categorically exempt from the same requirements when placed in the Internet alone. As a matter of policy, this simply does not make sense,” Ravel wrote in October.As head of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, Ravel pushed for a regulation requiring bloggers to disclose whether they were being paid by campaigns. Although she said her goal is not necessarily to do the same nationally, California campaigns hardly ground to a halt in 2014.Democratic communications consultant Steve Maviglio blogged critiques and tweeted snark about Proposition 45, the failed initiative that sought to give greater power over health insurance to the Insurance Commissioner. He also disclosed on his posts and Twitter handle that he was getting paid by the No-on-45 campaign, $10,000 a month.
