By Luke Wachob

Lois Lerner may be gone, but the IRS is still threating to infringe upon First Amendment rights. In the same vein, a new TIGTA report issued on April 30 praised the IRS for reducing its backload of applications and making some changes to its screening process, such as standardizing the questions asked of groups, but noted that the IRS still “does not have a clearly defined test for determining whether an organization’s request for exemption as a social welfare organization should be approved.”

Things might be a little better, but they’re still not good, and there’s nothing to stop the IRS from deciding to target groups again in the future. The failure to secure the rights of nonprofits in the aftermath of the scandal is a sobering reminder that passion for accountability is not enough. We also have to be wise, and address policy problems where they exist instead of merely searching for individuals to blame.

Disputes over the language of the 501(c)(4) statute, combined with a lack of clear guidance from the Federal Election Commission and gridlock in Congress, left the IRS to regulate in an area where it lacked sufficient expertise to act responsibly. The IRS deserves more than its fair share of rebuke for targeting groups with views it didn’t like, for being dishonest about its activities, and for responding to criticism by proposing even more restrictive regulations. But whether its errors were committed in good faith or not, whether they were catastrophic or mere blunders, the IRS simply should never have been put in position to make them.

Read more…

By Tarini Parti

But past and present Republican commissioners don’t believe publicizing the agency should be part of the FEC chair’s role and think it might have done more harm than good.

“Chair Ravel has been very public about her views, inviting questions about her impartiality through her public remarks concerning matters before the FEC and specific cases pending in federal court,” said Carolyn Hunter, one of the GOP members of the commission.

Brad Smith, a former Republican FEC chair, added: “No commissioner, I think, publicly accused their colleagues of simply refusing to enforce the law, and no one tried to use the commission as a vehicle for the personal political causes. The chair then talks about dysfunction. Heal thyself.”

Read more…

By Matthew S. Petersen, Caroline C. Hunter, Lee E. Goodman

We were disappointed to read that after a mere four months as chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, Ann M. Ravel, a Democrat, is ready to “give up” on efforts to come to agreement on enforcement measures at the agency, which she calls “worse than dysfunctional.”

Yes, the F.E.C.’s commissioners philosophically disagree on some complex legal questions that involve profound First Amendment rights. But the commission’s voting record demonstrates that bipartisan agreement is the general rule (93 percent of all votes cast since Ms. Ravel’s arrival at the commission), not the exception.

Much more meaningful work could be readily accomplished during the remainder of her year as chairwoman if she began to focus on building consensus. For example, she could honor her pledge to simplify absurd regulations that hamstring state and local parties.

Read more…

Senior Editorial Page Writer Collin Levy on the government’s argument in a case concerning a pro-Israel nonprofit. 

Watch…

By Matt Lewis

Last month a group called the Conservative Action Fund sent out an email urging GOP donors to draft Allen West, a former congressman who used to represent the 22nd district of Florida, to run for the U.S. Senate there. “With Marco Rubio running for the White House, this seat is even more vulnerable,” read the April 17 solicitation, before asking recipients to “make a generous gift of $15, $25, $35, or even $50 to the Conservative Action Fund so we can circulate this petition.”

One slight problem: Mr. West is an unlikely candidate for Senate in Florida, not least because in December he moved to Texas.

This kind of pitch to Republican donors has become all too familiar: In 2012 Mr. West was so frustrated with groups raising millions of dollars off his name—without much helping his embattled candidacy—that he filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. These groups were sucking up money that might otherwise have gone to help him win re-election. (He lost.) The commission ruled that because the political-action committees never claimed to be associated with Mr. West’s campaign, their solicitations were legal.

Read more…

By Stephen Klein

Rauch neutralizes terms that most consider unsavory, many of them listed in the book’s title. This includes political “machines,” often attributed pejoratively to groups such as Tammany Hall. Rauch is not a full-fledged apologist, but recognizes that throughout American history political machines and parties have organically risen and fallen. As the product of free association and popular support, they cannot be universally condemned. Whether their respective ends and means were principled is open for discussion, but there is no question that machines aimed to get things done and lived and died based on their ability to do that. Today, in part thanks to campaign finance laws, machines are harder to build and cannot properly function. By extension, Rauch argues, government cannot properly function.

The entire basis for campaign finance laws—and the only reason most of them are allowed to stand today, per the U.S. Supreme Court—is to combat political corruption. Rauch makes a convincing case that the definition of corruption is overbroad, and encompasses far too much of what was traditionally understood as the politics that is central to a functioning government. Even “transactional politics,” in which support and votes are acquired through favors and logrolling is far short of bribery. This is anathema to campaign finance reform. Rauch’s critique here marks some of the books most humorous moments:

As progressives, ever disgusted with politics, search for new dragons to slay, one struggles to understand what sort of real-world political system is not corrupt. Here, then, is a classic case of overshoot: what began as a useful correction of Tammany-­style excess has become a neurotic obsession.

Read more…

By  Patrick O’Connor

The Republican National Committee announced an agreement Thursday that allows the party access to data that a set of GOP presidential candidates and super PACs gather about voters.

The deal also allows the campaigns and PACs to use the RNC’s vast file of voter data and build on it as the campaign progresses. By accessing the RNC data, the candidates involved in the deal will begin the race with essentially the same access to the party’s biggest voter database, and the committee will benefit from information the campaigns gather about donors, volunteers and, most important, voters.

This could prove to be a potential boon for the party, if the primary stretches deep into April or May, because it would help the RNC gobble up information about voters in every state that holds a competitive nominating contest. Democrats used their fractious 2008 primary to build infrastructure in states where the party had not competed for the White House in years.

Read more…

By Chris Cillizza

How can Clinton reconcile her aggressive advocacy for reigning in big money in politics with her embrace of a super PAC aiming to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to tear down her eventual Republican opponent?

The answer she will likely give to that question, when pressed, is some version of the unilateral disarmament case: The only way to bring about real campaign finance reform is for me to get elected president. The only way for me to get elected president is to ensure a close-to-fair financial fight. The only way to ensure a close-to-fair financial fight is to help the super PAC raise money.

But, the honest truth is that Clinton isn’t likely to be heavily pressed on the question by anyone other than the media. Why? Because for all the sturm und drang about the corrosive role that money plays in politics, there’s very little evidence that anyone outside of a narrow swath of committed campaign finance reformers would even consider making it a voting issue in 2016.

Read more…

By Alex Roarty

May 7, 2015  The GOP could have a dozen deep-pocketed presidential contenders, and they’ll all learn next year that when it comes to actual votes, that extra money doesn’t buy what it used to.

Already, super PACs are arming second- and third-tier candidates with tens of millions of dollars while the supposed GOP front-runner, Jeb Bush, promises a record-setting haul. This combined fundraising guarantees that by the time Republicans have picked their nominee in summer 2016, the candidates will have spent more to reach voters than ever before.

But to what end? At some point – after the candidates make an initial investment of tens of millions of dollars for voter outreach in paid media and the ground game – the money available to spend simply can’t buy the advantage it once did. And that’s because the primary contest will still depend mightily on the outcomes of each of the first four contests, all of which provide invaluable momentum and none of which are held in large or expensive states where candidates have to invest heavily to have an impact.

Read more…

By Peggy Noonan

I wonder if any aspirant for the presidency except Hillary Clinton could survive such a book. I suspect she can because the Clintons are unique in the annals of American politics: They are protected from charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption. It’s not news anymore. They’re like . . . Bonnie and Clyde go on a spree, hold up a bunch of banks, it causes a sensation, there’s a trial, and they’re acquitted. They walk out of the courthouse, get in a car, rob a bank, get hauled in, complain they’re being picked on—“Why are you always following us?”—and again, not guilty. They rob the next bank and no one cares. “That’s just Bonnie and Clyde doing what Bonnie and Clyde do. No one else cares, why should I?”

Mr. Schweizer announces upfront that he cannot prove wrongdoing, only patterns of behavior. There is no memo that says, “To all staff: If we deal this week with any issues regarding Country A, I want you to know country A just gave my husband $750,000 for a speech, so give them what they want.” Even if Mrs. Clinton hadn’t destroyed her emails, no such memo would be found. (Though patterns, dates and dynamics might be discerned.) 

Read more…

By Carrie Johnson

“I know how hard this work is for the men and women who work here,” Hulser said in an interview. “This place is part of my career and my growing up.”

Just within the past few months, the unit convicted a judge in Puerto Rico; indicted law enforcement officers in North Carolina accused of trying to operate a protection racket for drug traffickers; and indicted sitting New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat who has vowed to fight bribery and other charges lodged against him.

“What you can see from that case and some of the others we’ve brought over the last several months is that this section is not going to be shy about bringing important and tough cases and we’re going to try those cases,” Hulser said.

Read more…

By Jack Brammer

The State Board of Elections approved the emergency administrative regulation authorized by Gov. Steve Beshear at a meeting Tuesday.

The regulation comes in the wake of an April 28 ruling by the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a Kentucky law prohibiting electioneering within 300 feet of a polling place was unconstitutional.

The court said a 300-foot ban is too broad. The U.S. Supreme Court previously had upheld a 100-foot ban. 

Read more…