CCP
New IRS Commissioner Avoids Key Questions at Hearing
By Kelsey DrapkinWhile we strongly hope that Commissioner Koskinen will take the appropriate time to read the many IRS documents illuminating the details of the IRS targeting scandal, we further hope he remains true to his commitment to keep the IRS an “apolitical” agency. Given that the IRS’s proposed rulemaking for 501(c)(4)’s would further drag the embattled agency into the regulation of political speech, the Commissioner would be well-advised to strongly reconsider implementation of the proposed rules.Regrettably, at this time, the Commissioner likely did little to restore the trust of the American people in a powerful government agency that has access to citizens’ sensitive financial and personal information, since no concrete commitment was made by Koskinen to assure citizens that the IRS will not restrict their speech or target them because of their political values and beliefs.
FEC
Wall Street Journal: The Feds Flirt With Reining in TV Talk
By FEC Commissioner Lee GoodmanHistory is rife with government efforts to disrupt, investigate and even silence dissenting published opinion. From early colonial times when royal governments punished and shuttered printers critical of royal governors, to film-review-board censorship, attempts to enjoin the printing of the Pentagon Papers and, more recently, government prying into journalists’ telephone records, government power has proved to be a dangerous threat to freedom of the press.The judgments of six FEC commissioners—who are by law appointed by partisan affiliation—can be biased too. A few examples from recent years (several predating current commissioners’ tenures) are revealing. The FEC voted unanimously in 2008 to recognize a technology company’s (Melothe Inc.) right to launch a new Web campaign channel devoted exclusively to pro-Democratic coverage, endorsements of Democratic candidates and even solicitations for contributions on behalf of Democratic candidates. Six commissioners also voted to recognize former Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan’s right to launch an online publication in 2005 devoted exclusively to pro-Democratic commentary free from regulation.But in 2010, three commissioners voted to find that “The Sean Hannity Show” violated the law when the radio program endorsed a Republican candidate for Congress and emailed its endorsement and a solicitation of support to the show’s distribution list.
Independent Groups
Wall Street Journal: Obama’s IRS ‘Confusion’
Editorial
House committees are still digging into the IRS political targeting scandal, and based on a hearing Wednesday there’s more to learn. The day produced more evidence blowing apart President Obama’s claims that there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” or political motivation in the IRS handling of groups applying for tax-exempt status.Mr. Obama wants Americans to believe that the targeting resulted from the confusing tax law governing nonprofits, which he says was “difficult” to interpret and resulted in mere “bureaucratic” mistakes. This is also the Administration’s justification for issuing new regulations governing 501(c)(4)s that would effectively silence White House opponents this election year. Published in the Federal Register in November, the new rules cite the “lack of a clear and concise” regulation as reason for the rewrite.House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp blew up this fairy tale at Wednesday’s hearing with new IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. Mr. Camp unveiled a June 14, 2012 email from Treasury career attorney Ruth Madrigal to key IRS officials in the tax-exempt department, including former director Lois Lerner.
The Hill: Obama’s IRS intimidation has no place in America
By Rick ManningWarning America about new regulations the IRS is proposing to legitimize the targeting of Tea Party groups and others, Jindal writes, “As with many things associated with the Obama Administration, there’s a big catch. The IRS could easily use those donor lists to engage in harassment and intimidation against those who disagree with the Administration’s liberal agenda.”I agree.And so does the U.S. Supreme Court. No, I’m not talking about the Citizens United decision that opened the doors for individuals and corporations to be able to defend their interests against an avaricious government. Instead I’m speaking of the 1958 NAACP v. Alabama case where the Supreme Court expressly protected the NAACP’s donor and member records from the state, voicing concerns that sound eerily familiar today.
Daily Caller: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict nonprofits
By Patrick HowleyThe Obama administration’s Treasury Department and former IRS official Lois Lerner conspired to draft new 501(c)(4) regulations to restrict the activity of conservative groups in a way that would not be disclosed publicly, according to the House Committee on Ways and Means.The Treasury Department and Lerner started devising the new rules “off-plan,” meaning that their plans would not be published on the public schedule. They planned the new rules in 2012, while the IRS targeting of conservative groups was in full swing, and not after the scandal broke in order to clarify regulations as the administration has suggested.The rules place would place much more stringent controls on what would be considered political activity by the IRS, effectively limiting the standard practices of a wide array of non-profit groups.
Cause of Action: Cause of Action Sues IRS Over Proposed Regulations Affecting Nonprofits
“The IRS’ proposed regulation is simply a back door attempt to stifle political opponents, to protect Administration policies, and to restrict and hamper grassroots education regarding the Constitution, limited-government, and economic freedom. We’ve seen a pattern spanning decades of the IRS being used to deter political dissenters and stifle criticism. The government’s proposed rules continue this pattern and are but one more example of the Executive Branch abusing its administrative power. Every American is entitled to government transparency and accountability which is why Cause of Action is filing this lawsuit.”
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
NPR: Rethinking The 17th Amendment: An Old Idea Gets Fresh Opposition
By ALAN GREENBLATTA number of Republican politicians and conservativecommentators are calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment. Ratified in 1913, it gave voters the power to elect U.S. senators directly.Before that, senators were generally selected by state legislatures. Returning that authority to the states would give them much more sway in Washington, restoring their role as a check on federal expansion, repeal supporters say.“There’s no doubt that was a major step toward the explosion of federal power and the undermining of the authority of the states,” Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz said at a summit of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group of state legislators and businesses, back in December.
The Hill: Left aims to gain ground on super-PACs
By Kevin BogardusAlarmed by the rise of super-PACs, major allies of the Democratic Party are rallying behind new legislation that would provide federal matching funds for small-dollar donations.Groups like Sierra Club, Communications Workers of America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee are endorsing legislation from Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) that would offer tax credits to campaign donors as well as matching funds to candidates who forgo traditional PAC contributions.Other major liberal groups are expected to line up behind the bill as well.
Lobbying and Ethics
Covington & Burlington: The D’Souza Case and Big Data
By Robert KelnerThe recent indictment of conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza is, in many ways, an unremarkable example of a garden variety “straw donor” prosecution. The Department of Justice cranks out a steady stream of them. Even the relatively small dollar amount at issue ($20,000) is not especially unusual. DOJ is aggressive in prosecuting even small reimbursement cases.What did catch our eye, however, is the way in which the government apparently became aware of the alleged reimbursement scheme. For some time, we have been telling clients that either the FEC, DOJ, or both, would eventually figure out how easy it is to detect straw donor schemes by looking closely at patterns in publicly filed FEC disclosure reports. With just a little bit of digging, including some analysis of geographic, employer, and timing data (ideally mapped against other publicly available data about particular donors), your average fourth grader these days could devise an algorithm to tease out reimbursement schemes from the data.
