CCP
Letter in Support of H.R. 5053 (“Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act”)
David Keating
More specifically, the measure would eliminate an outdated and ineffective portion of the tax code (Form 990, Schedule B) that serves no legitimate function as a regulatory tool for the agency, puts the privacy of American citizens at risk, and heightens the odds of politically motivated abuse by government officials.
Based on IRS data, we estimate providing this donor information on tax returns costs charities and other nonprofit groups $63 million per year – money that could be better spent on program activities by charities and nonprofits.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen and IRS Director of Exempt Organizations, Tamera Ripperda, have both recently said that the IRS is already considering dropping the donor reporting requirement on Form 990, Schedule B because the agency has not found it useful for its oversight of tax-exempt groups and must expend significant resources to protect the confidentiality of the donors as required by law.
In the News
More Soft Money Hard Law: Again Before the Supreme Court: Can There Be “Issues Speech” During Campaigns?
Bob Bauer
The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to take up a major case about disclosure and this has received little attention—far less than it should. At issue is the clarification of how far government authority extends in requiring the disclosure of the financing of “issues speech”–speech or just information about candidates’ positions that does not involve engaging in advocacy of their election or defeat. There are reasons why the case might have been overlooked: it involves a small organization in a small state, and the activity concerns state and local, not federal (much less presidential), candidates. Perhaps, also, because it is “just” about disclosure, this case might be supposed to pose little danger of harm to anyone’s rights or legitimate expectations.
This is serious business. As the states move along with their own reform programs, and as litigation proceeds under different standards applied by different circuits and diminishing consistency in the treatment of federal and state or local-level enactment, disclosure doctrine is losing its coherence, and key constitutional distinctions once taken for granted are being rapidly eroded. One disturbing result: the “big” and sophisticated spenders at the federal level are more protected than the “little guy” at the levels below.
Donor Privacy
Forbes: Roskam IRS Free Speech Bill Will Stop the Next Lois Lerner
Ryan Ellis
H.R. 5053 would prevent the IRS from collecting the names of donors to non-profit organizations. Under current law, 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) non-profits are required to furnish this information to the IRS on Schedule B of their annual Form 990 reporting statement. The IRS does not make Schedule B available to the public, and has even indicated that they no longer see the value of collecting it.
Nevertheless, this information is floating around at the IRS. As we learned from the Lois Lerner affair, employees at the IRS do not always feel bound by the rules and ethics expected of them by the service. It’s only a matter of time until some unscrupulous employee is going to leak one of these “Schedule B” forms (it’s already happened “inadvertently” with the National Organization for Marriage and the Republican Governors Association). A leak will almost certainly be a donor list from a conservative non-profit, if recent past is prologue.
American Thinker: Protecting the Privacy of Nonprofit Donors from Abuse
Mark J. Fitzgibbons
By law, this contribution information is supposed to be treated and guarded by the IRS as confidential. Unauthorized access to and use of that information by government officials is prohibited under post-Watergate reforms to the tax code. Its unintentional disclosure is subject to civil remedies, albeit ones without enough teeth in an age of careless bureaucrats. Criminal penalties are supposed to apply to officials who willfully disclose or review your private information unless expressly authorized under a rigid privacy regime in the tax code.
Information about Americans’ private generosity, however, is not safe with the IRS. And, there are those people who attribute sinister motives to generosity, calling beneficence for even deeply held convictions of conscience “dark money.”
Washington Examiner: Kochs invoke free speech in backing IRS donor bill
Joseph Lawler
“Charles Koch has the courage to stand up for what he believes in and frankly he has the resources to protect himself,” Ellender said, but others would be discouraged or intimidated by the death threats and harassment he receives. “The right to give anonymously is like the right to vote anonymously,” he added.
Individuals should have the ability to give anonymously to nonprofits, he said. “Transparency’s meant for the government.”
Independent Groups
Atlantic: Standing by Their Man
Michelle Cottle
Of particular concern was the need for Women Vote Trump—which, incidentally, will also be handling the coalition-building effort typically run from inside a presidential campaign—to “make it safe” for women to “come out” about their feelings for the Donald. “Some of our speakers are going to talk about that a little bit more,” Serkes assured the audience in her opening remarks. “Because some of this also involves an act of courage!”
And talk they did. Kremer admitted how scared she was initially to tell anyone about her political orientation. “My heart was going toward Donald Trump, but I didn’t want to say anything to anybody because I was afraid of being reprimanded.” And once she came out? “Of course I have been beaten about. I’m still beaten about to this day. But you know what? It doesn’t matter, because you have to stand strong for what you believe in.”
FEC
Washington Examiner: Conservatives warn: Dems pushing for a ‘tyrannical’ FEC
Rudy Takala
The move to make the agency an election-year issue seems to have been inspired largely by Democratic FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel, who last year filled the agency’s rotating chairmanship and who criticized her colleagues with unusual intensity. Ravel’s frustration culminated with a call in January for the other commissioners to quit, arguing it was “absurd” to say “the FEC was intended to stalemate.”
Conservatives charge Ravel is politicizing the agency. White House visitor logs made public last month revealed that Ravel visited the White House at nearly the same time, first on Jan. 20 and again on Jan. 28. Consequently, critics are worried about the role Ravel seems to play in proposals to renovate the commission.
Free Speech
Washington Post: Gov. Andrew Cuomo: If you boycott Israel, New York state will boycott you
Andrew Cuomo
That is why I recently signed the first executive order by a U.S. governor to help protect Israel from these pernicious efforts to punish it economically. My order ensures that no state agency or authority will engage in or promote any investment activity that would further the harmful and discriminatory BDS campaign. New York will identify institutions and companies, with the list made available to the public and updated regularly, that engage in boycotts, divestment or sanctions activity targeting Israel, either directly or through a parent or subsidiary. All state funds will then be divested from such entities.
If you boycott Israel, New York will boycott you.
Candidates and Campaigns
Huffington Post: Sad!These three campaign gurus for Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have had some time to reflect on their loss to The Donald.
Sam Stein
Roe: Donald is one of the best players of the inside game, which was always the irony that we could never quite get over. What kind of deals does he cut? Those types of things. For the Clintons, I wouldn’t just look into the Foundation, which is the easiest piece of this pie to put together. The money her family made when she was secretary of state is incredible. I mean, that would put most people in jail.
Conant: Yeah, I would follow the money for both of them. I think the most success the media has had pursuing a story against Trump has been following the veterans’ money.
Roe: And it didn’t start until everybody was out.
Diaz: Right. Once you hit that 1,237 delegate number, you know what’s going to happen. The assignment of stories and the stack of hits that come against you as a Republican nominee.
You thought the media was holding off on Trump during the primary?
Roe: I believe that there were financial decisions made in media suites on who they wanted to have as a nominee and what they would do to him after he became a nominee. I don’t think all of this is accidental. I really don’t.
Politico: Furious GOP donors stew over Trump
Alex Isenstadt
The incidents, which were relayed by three sources who were present — one of whom described them as “shocking” — illustrates the intense anger coursing through the GOP donor community. Far from letting go of their white-knuckled opposition to Trump, they’re stewing in it.
“I’ve been on the record with a statement saying I’m not supporting Donald Trump, and that hasn’t changed in four months,” said Whitman, who helped bankroll TV ads against Trump during the Republican primary. She wouldn’t reveal which candidate she’d back in November, and said she didn’t intend to make a decision until later on.
“Right now, I’m undecided, and undecided means I’m not doing anything,” said John Rakolta, a Michigan construction company executive who was a top Romney fundraiser. “I haven’t seen that ‘pivot’ that we’d need to see from someone who’s capable of being the next president of the United States.”
The States
Syracuse Post-Standard: Comprehensive ethics reform missing in action in Albany
Editorial Board
With three days left in its 2016 session, it looks as if the New York state Legislature will not be passing comprehensive ethics reform this year. This, even as former leaders Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos stand convicted of corruption, public opinion polls put ethics at the top of voters’ agenda and all 213 legislators are up for re-election in November.
It’s just a hunch, mind you. Funny things have been known to happen in the Legislature’s waning days, when months of work are crammed into hours, and sleeplessness and hunger take hold. But the signs aren’t hopeful.
Charleston Post and Courier: Lawmakers would have to hurdle ‘lines in the sand’ obstacle to pass ethics reform this week
Maya T. Prabhu
House and Senate members appear to be sticking firm over what’s been called the breaking point in a bill that would create an independent eight-member ethics commission to investigate elected officials accused of wrongdoing.
“I think it’s really going to be on the Senate to decide what they want to do,” said York Republican Rep. Tommy Pope, who authored the House version of ethics reform.
That runs counter to the stance of Sen. Gerald Malloy, D-Hartsville, who said it’s up to the House to agree to the Senate’s version of reform.
“If there’s some movement on the ethics bill, I think it will have to be such that the House will have to change their course of action as it relates to the time of public disclosure,” Malloy said.
