IRS
Judicial Watch: New Documents Show IRS Used Donor Lists to Target Audits
Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that confirm that the IRS used donor lists to tax-exempt organizations to target those donors for audits. The documents also show IRS officials specifically highlighted how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may come under “high scrutiny” from the IRS. The IRS produced the records in a Freedom of Information lawsuit seeking documents about selection of individuals for audit-based application information on donor lists submitted by Tea Party and other 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations
Headline and Global News: IRS Used Donor Lists To Target Audits, Judicial Watch Says
Taylor Tyler
One organization specifically targeted for the gift tax was the super PAC, Crossroads GPS, which has ties to former President George W. Bush’s senior political adviser, Karl Rove, according to internal emails.
“And the snarky comments about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the obsession with Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS show that the IRS was targeting critics of the Obama administration. President Obama may want to continue to lie about his IRS scandal,” Fitton said. “These documents tell the truth – his IRS hated conservatives and was willing to illegally tax and audit citizens to shut down opposition to Barack Obama’s policies and reelection.”
Los Angeles Times: Watchdogs say more oversight of IRS needed as it investigates nonprofits
Colin Diersing
Their conclusion comes after a 2013 investigation found the IRS inappropriately targeted groups with “tea party” in their name, in what defenders say was an attempt to weed out political groups that should not have nonprofit status. According to a Government Accountability Office report released Thursday, procedures meant to ensure all groups are treated fairly contain certain loopholes that could still allow IRS employees to target organizations based on their religious or political views.
“It is disappointing that over two years later, it is still possible that the IRS can select groups for adverse treatment based on their personal political, religious, or educational beliefs,” said Rep. Peter Roskam (R- Ill.), who chairs the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee. “There isn’t proper documentation of allegations or decisions to audit; there are a handful of gatekeepers with sweeping authority and broad discretion; and there is a broken referral committee process.”
The Hill: GOP to IRS: Just admit Tea Party was targeted
Bernie Becker
Koskinen, speaking to a House Ways and Means subcommittee, reiterated that the IRS was wrong to single out groups seeking tax-exempt status based solely on their names.
But the IRS chief also said that congressional committees will have to make the final call on what drove that scrutiny – which the agency, through then-official Lois Lerner, admitted and apologized for more than two years ago.
“The motivation behind it, and the issues behind it, are what the investigations are investigating,” Koskinen told reporters after appearing before the subcommittee.
Bloomberg: 19 Facts On IRS Targeting President Obama Can’t Blame On Republicans
Robert W. Wood
On The Daily Show, President Obama blamed Republicans for the IRS scandal:
“You’ve got this back office, and they’re going after the Tea Party. Well, it turned out, no, Congress had passed a crummy law that didn’t give people guidance in terms of what it was they were trying to do. They did it poorly and stupidly. The truth of the matter is that there was not some big conspiracy there. They were trying to sort out these conflicting demands. You don’t want all this money pouring through non-for- profits, but you also want to make sure everybody is being treated fairly.”
Really, Mr. President? For effect, perhaps he should reprise his testy “not even a smidgen of corruption” remark to Fox News. The President keeps claiming there is no evidence the IRS was used for political targeting. You be the judge:
Independent Groups
Politico: Hillary Clinton gets free pass from some GOP non-profits
Tarini Parti and Kenneth P. Vogel
By this point in the 2012 election cycle, independent conservative groups were already airing ads in swing states, attacking President Barack Obama for raising the debt ceiling and blaming him for higher gas prices.
But this time around, the groups have been strangely silent on the airwaves when it comes to Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee and conservatives’ top target…
While some of these groups are biding their time and honing their messages waiting for the perfect moment to pounce, there’s another complicated – and more obscure – consideration keeping some from blanketing the airwaves with ads taking on Clinton: An arcane provision in the tax code limits how much cash certain nonprofit groups can dedicate to overtly political spending, and since Clinton isn’t in office — unlike Obama in 2011 and vulnerable Democratic senators in 2013 — it’s difficult to mask the political intentions under the guise of issues ads aimed at officeholders.
The Hill: New PAC wants to Fire Trump
Ben Kamisar
The Let’s Fire TRUMP PAC filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to create the political action committee on Wednesday that turns Trump’s famous catchphrase from his time as the host of NBC’s “The Apprentice” back on him.
In order to follow FEC rules that only allow a candidate’s name to be used in an authorized group, the filing notes that TRUMP is an “acronym of Terrible Radicals Undermining Middle Class People.”
Wisconsin John Doe
Wisconsin News: John Doe targets go on the record to slam probe
Steven Verburg
But there are indications that the raids may not have been conducted differently from searches seeking evidence against lower profile individuals.
A command officer for the Dane County Sheriff’s Office said it isn’t uncommon for police to tell residents they can’t immediately make phone calls during a raid.
If a series of searches is taking place, suspects could use the phone to warn others to flee or destroy evidence, said Capt. Jeff Teuscher. In any event, officers might want to make sure they had secured the premises before allowing individuals to move freely or make phone calls, Teuscher said. In contrast, the questioning of a suspect in custody ends as soon as a call to an attorney is requested, Teuscher said.
Campaign Finance
Washington Times: Campaign finance reform can’t punish free speech
Stephen Klein
For example, laws can prohibit campaigning within a certain distance of a polling place on Election Day in order to prevent voter intimidation. But such restrictions must be made carefully.
So, prohibiting campaigning within a few hundred feet of a polling place is okay; prohibiting campaigning within a mile of one is not. This concept is called overbreadth, and means that a law that restricts speech cannot be worded in a way that goes beyond its legitimate reach. Unfortunately, this principle is often absent in discussions about one of today’s most important areas of free speech, campaign finance. While so-called campaign finance reformers decry the supposed problems of money in politics, their solutions restrict far too much political speech, violating not only the First Amendment but also common sense.
Washington Times: It’s Buckley, not Citizens United, that created massive spending
Alan B. Morrison
In Buckley the Court treated expenditures as pure speech and said it cannot be limited. That can’t be right. If a candidate for office blares election messages from a sound truck outside my home at midnight, a law that forbids such “speech” cannot be saved on the ground that a state cannot limit political speech. Or take another Supreme Court case where the Court held that laws banning campaigning for a candidate, including wearing buttons or t-shirts and carrying small signs, inside the polling place are valid despite the First Amendment.
The States
National Journal: Missouri’s ‘Wild West’ Campaign-Finance Rules Are Making Candidates Look Terrible
Karyn Bruggeman
Indeed, a handful of states have no limits on who can donate to candidates or how much, but Missouri is the only state with the combination of no limits on campaign donations or lobbyist gifts, and no laws on the books to prevent elected officials from immediately becoming lobbyists after leaving office.
For candidates looking to raise money, the laissez-faire approach is a boon. But when it comes time to explain to voters where that cash came from and what it was for, candidates are often left without good answers. That has been particularly true of the start of the state’s 2016 governor’s race, in which candidates have amassed solid campaign accounts but are having a hard time escaping accusations of hypocrisy and double standards.
Arizona Republic: Legal battle looms over proposed Arizona dark-money rules
Mary Jo Pitzl
Unless the agency backs down on a proposed rule that would require some campaign committees to reveal their donors, a lawsuit is “inevitable,” state Elections Director Eric Spencer told the five commissioners.
Spencer argued that the commission doesn’t have the authority to regulate independent-expenditure committees, which have proliferated since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case.
Spencer’s boss, Secretary of State Michele Reagan, campaigned for office last year in part on a pledge to bring to light the source of money fueling independent-expenditure committees. But she has since changed her view, saying it’s impossible to require disclosures of dark money because federal law doesn’t require committees to name their individual contributors.
