In the News
More Soft Money Hard Law: Super PACs and the Confusion of Regulatory Objectives
By Bob Bauer
The consequences of regulation in the two cases are still more different. Where the candidate has solicited the money directly from the donor, one-on-one, the candidate and the donor are joined together, sole parties to what Brad Smith calls a potentially corrupting “opportunity for bargaining.” The independent committee then receives the money, but only then, and it can proceed independently from that point in designing, producing and choosing the timing for a communication on behalf of the candidate. If the prior solicitation is deemed an act of coordination, then the committee becomes liable after the fact for an illegal contribution and is unable to claim independence from the candidate in making any subsequent expenditure.
Christian Post: IRS Scandal Has Obama Fingerprints All Over It, Experts Say
By Tyler O’Neil
Bradley A. Smith, chairman and founder of the Center for Competitive Politics, argued that the new rules constitute “an effort to regulate campaign finance disguised as a tax regulation.” He explained that when the DISCLOSE Act failed last summer, Democrats turned to the tax code to force their campaign finance reform.
While such reform normally falls under the bipartisan Federal Elections Commission, Smith alleged that Democrats decided to push the rules through the Obama administration’s IRS as a way to circumvent Republicans. He also explained that since the IRS has no experience in drafting these kinds of regulations, they will be less effective and will end up causing a great deal of problems for nonprofit groups on both sides of the aisle.
“The Republicans have an enormous advantage in 501c4 giving,” explained Eliana Johnson, media editor of National Review. Johnson argued that the impact of these regulations would fall on Republican groups more than Democratic groups, and claimed that a friendship with Democrats might lie behind the new rules.
CCP
Giving Women Voters a Bad Name: The League and the IRS Non-Profit Rules
By Brad Smith
The League of Women Voters was once thought of as a group that promoted a thoughtful electorate and “good government,” but that doesn’t show up much any more. One of the League’s current projects is to support bad government – using the Internal Revenue Service for a mission for which it was not intended, the suppression of political speech. Even if one thinks that there ought to be more restrictions on political speech, using the IRS is no way to go about it. It is almost the definition of “bad government.” But like most liberal organizations, the League has apparently decided on an “any port in a storm” approach – Congress can’t pass the campaign restrictions it wants, and the bipartisan FEC won’t act on its own to do so, so they’ll try the IRS. Which is how we got the scandal of the IRS targeting conservative groups for delay and harassment last year.
Now the League is trying to drum up comments from the public to the IRS to urge it to put in place rules that would restrict the speech of non-profit advocacy groups. So it has set up a web page on which its members and visitors can send form comments to the IRS – not well-thought out comments, but a short form letter. In other words – don’t think; don’t write your own letter to the IRS after considering the issue – just take our word for it, cut and paste what we’ve written, and click “send.” Not the thoughtful voter the League once championed.
‘CRAP’: Heritage panel discusses proposed IRS regulations speech-chilling potential
By Kelsey Drapkin
The Heritage Foundation hosted a panel this afternoon moderated by former FEC commissioner Hans von Spakovsky, entitled “Taxing the First Amendment: Using the IRS to Censor Speech?.” The panel featured the opinions of Cleta Mitchell, election law attorney and legal representative of several Tea Party groups targeted by the IRS, CCP Chairman Bradley A. Smith, National Review’s Eliana Johnson, and Wall Street Journal Editorial Board member Kimberley Strassel. The panelists discussed the ramifications of the proposed 501(c)(4) regulations that were inconspicuously introduced the Friday after Thanksgiving as well as the continuous developments unfolding in the ongoing investigations of the IRS targeting scandal.
Mitchell, who submitted comments to the IRS on behalf of Tea Party Patriots and FreedomWorks, discussed how the new rules create a broad new category of “candidate-related political activity,” which functions as an all-inclusive blanket term and would essentially prevent 501(c)(4)’s from participating in a wide variety of activities, including nonpartisan get out the vote efforts and production and distribution of legislative scorecards. She noted that even those nonpartisan activities that don’t mention a specific candidate will be counted as political activity under the proposed rulemaking. This is a significant issue as newly defined “candidate-related political activity” cannot be a “primary” purpose for these groups, if they wish to maintain their tax-exempt status. Mitchell boiled down the new regulations to prohibiting “basically all the things that are done to hold public officials accountable.” Working to keep those same public officials accountable, Mitchell submitted a FOIA request on behalf of the Tea Party Patriots on December 10, 2013, requesting documents pertaining to the creation of the proposed regulations. She was told by the IRS that she would not receive the documents until April 7, 2014, nearly six weeks after the public comment period concludes on February 27.
Independent Groups
Heritage Foundation: Q&A: Kevin Kookogey, IRS Targeting Scandal Victim
Nashville lawyer Kevin Kookogey, who is also a Heritage Foundation member and donor, founded an educational organization called Linchpins of Liberty in 2010. Its mission was to mentor high school and college students in the continuing relevance of America’s founding principles. Kookogey says improper IRS actions effectively ruined his group.
CPI: Next up: ‘Citizens United v. IRS’?
By Dave Levinthal
Four years ago, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision remade the rules for how political campaigns are waged.
Could a Citizens United v. Internal Revenue Service case be next?
Yes, says David Bossie, the outspoken president of Citizens United — if the IRS enacts plans to restrict how certain tax-exempt nonprofit groups spend their money on politicking, as the agency says it may do.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Washington Post: How ‘the next Citizens United’ could bring more corruption — but less gridlock
By Richard L. Hasen
An opinion could come as early as this coming week in the Supreme Court case being called “the next Citizens United,” and groups concerned about the influence of money in American politics are bracing themselves for the result. Public Citizen has planned more than 100 events across the country in anticipation of a McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling that further dismantles our campaign finance laws and strikes down a key federal campaign contribution limit.
I, too, am troubled by the prospect of an awful decision that would clear the way for more corruption. But I find some solace in the thought that such a ruling could have a surprising positive side effect: reducing gridlock in Washington.
New Yorker: Clarence Thomas’ Disgraceful Silence
By Jeffrey Toobin
As of this Saturday, February 22nd, eight years will have passed since Clarence Thomas last asked a question during a Supreme Court oral argument. His behavior on the bench has gone from curious to bizarre to downright embarrassing, for himself and for the institution he represents.
Tax Financing
NY Times: Ad Campaign Seeks to Increase Chances of Cuomo’s Campaign Finance Plan
By THOMAS KAPLAN
On Monday, a national group that seeks to lessen the influence of big campaign donors plans to unveil a $1 million advertising campaign aimed at promoting the public financing plan. The group hopes that the effort will help persuade the governor and lawmakers to keep it in the spending proposal, which must be approved by April 1, as they negotiate in the coming weeks.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
NY Times: House Republicans in Texas Donate to Protect One of Their Own
By DEREK WILLIS
One of the surest signs that an incumbent is concerned about re-election is the amount of money that other lawmakers send his way.
By that standard, Representative Ralph M. Hall, who is in his 34th year of House service, is clearly worried. At least seven of Mr. Hall’s fellow Texas Republicans have contributed money to him from their own campaigns since the beginning of 2014, although Mr. Hall’s most recent Federal Election Commission filing incorrectly labeled them as individual contributions. Between Jan. 1 and Feb. 12, Mr. Hall raised $117,688 — more than four times what he raised during the same period in 2010.
