In the News
Wall Street Journal: Connecting the Dots in the IRS Scandal
By Bradley A. Smith
In 1170, King Henry II is said to have cried out, on hearing of the latest actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” Four knights then murdered the archbishop. Many in the U.S. media still willfully refuse to see anything connecting the murder of the archbishop to any actions or abuse of power by the king.
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: The Administration’s Proposed Restrictions on Political Speech: Doubling Down on IRS Targeting
February 27, 2014 | 9:30 a.m. in 2247 Rayburn House Office Building
Featuring CCP Legal Director Allen Dickerson
Cato Institute: Proposed IRS Rulemaking Would Chill Public Advocacy
Features Allen Dickerson
Tomorrow ends the comment period for a proposed IRS rule that would change the way groups from the Sierra Club to the NRA advocate on behalf of their members. By defining “candidate-related political activity” as the rule has, election time could compel these groups to scrub their websites and Twitter feeds of almost any mention of political candidates.
PowerLine: Cleta Chronicles: IRS Scandals, Part 4
By Scott Johnson
The IRS and the Obama administration are deep into the cover-up phase of the IRS’s criminal misconduct. Cleta has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking documents relating to the proposed rule. In the video below, she explains the peculiarities of the IRS’s response to her request.
Brad Smith and his colleagues at the Center for Competitive Politics have compiled an invaluable, heavily footnoted document setting forth the efforts by the regulatory agencies to police political speech at the behest of the Democratic Party: “The IRS harassment scandal: A timeline of ‘reform.’”
Roll Call: IRS Uproar Intensifies
By Eliza Newlin Carney
Like many IRS-watchers following the rule-making process, Sloan predicts that there is “actually zero chance” that they will ultimately be enacted. That the agency has produced such predictably controversial draft regulations has prompted much head-scratching among campaign finance and tax experts.
“One might assign nefarious motives to the IRS, or one might say that they don’t know what they’re doing,” said former FEC chairman Bradley Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, at Heritage Foundation panel discussion last week on the IRS regulations. “Neither of those reflects well for putting forward this kind of rule.”
IRS
Covington & Burlington: Conflicting Signals on Finalizing the Proposed Treasury Regulations for 501(c)(4)s
By Kevin Shortill
Earlier today, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, in his first appearance before the House Appropriations subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government Oversight, stated that final regulations governing political activity by 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations are unlikely to be completed before the November elections.
His statement seems to differ from the White House Statement of Administration Policy that was published last night. In that statement, the Administration “strongly opposes” proposed legislation temporarily prohibiting the IRS from finalizing the proposed regulations for one year (i.e., until after the elections). That legislation, H.R. 3865, was passed by the House late this afternoon. The Statement concludes by stating that if the President were presented with H.R. 3865, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Forbes: IRS Proposed Rules For Nonprofits Alarm Conservatives and Liberals Alike
By Kelly Phillips Erb
The road to reform the rules related to tax-exempt organizations appears to have hit a few bumps. And by a few, I mean close to 77,000.
That’s the number of comments recorded as of last night on the Federal eRulemaking Portal for IRS REG–134417–13. It’s one of the most popular commented matters currently pending on the portal – attracting more attention than the Keystone XL pipeline, greenhouse gas emissions standards and the use of mobile wireless devices on airplanes.
Independent Groups
PrawfsBlawg: The other side of corporate speech
By Howard Wasserman
But isn’t this corporate speech? Isn’t the NFL, a powerful entity, engaging in First Amendment expressive activities by using its economic influence to affect public policy? Isn’t this exactly what critics of the “corporations have First Amendment rights” meme object to? (The NFL is not a corporation but an unincorporated association of associations, but I doubt that matters much for most arguments). Liberals and progressives and supporters of LGBT rights–the very groups most likely to be criticsl of Citizens United, are now quite pleased with, and supportive of, the NFL’s stance and the (hoped-for) effect it could have on this horrific piece of public policy. But other than the valence of the political position at issue, how is this different than a large company trying to affect environmental policy or elections (which, in turn, will define policy)?
