IRS
Washington Post: Obama administration’s ‘continuous resistance’ in IRS targeting case slammed by federal appeals court
Fred Barbash
A federal appeals court Tuesday slammed the IRS for what it called three years of “continuous resistance” to turning over documents in connection with a class action suit brought by tea party groups singled out for months of delays, excessive paperwork and scrutiny as they sought tax-exempt status in 2010.
A unanimous ruling by a three judge panel of the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found that the IRS, in its unresponsiveness to the targeting charges, “has only compounded the conduct that gave rise” to them.
Washington Post: Sixth Circuit loses patience with the IRS
Jonathan H. Adler
Yet in this lawsuit the IRS has only compounded the conduct that gave rise to it. The plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves and other groups whose applications the IRS treated in the manner described by the Inspector General. The lawsuit has progressed as slowly as the underlying applications themselves: at every turn the IRS has resisted the plaintiffs’ requests for information regarding the IRS’s treatment of the plaintiff class, eventually to the open frustration of the district court. At issue here are IRS “Be On the Lookout” lists of organizations allegedly targeted for unfavorable treatment because of their political beliefs. Those organizations in turn make up the plaintiff class. The district court ordered production of those lists, and did so again over an IRS motion to reconsider. Yet, almost a year later, the IRS still has not complied with the court’s orders. Instead the IRS now seeks from this court a writ of mandamus, an extraordinary remedy reserved to correct only the clearest abuses of power by a district court. We deny the petition.
Independent Groups
Washington Post: What we can learn from the man blamed for Jeb Bush’s loss
Carter Eskew
Still, Murphy adds, the problem with our current antiestablishment climate isn’t that people aren’t correctly identifying problems. It’s that the problem-solvers they’re turning to are bigger snake-oil hustlers than the ones they’re turning away from. Whether it’s the middle class being hollowed out or fiscal irresponsibility, “The pain is legit. But Trump is a stupid vote. Because Trump won’t solve any of those things, he’ll make them all worse. You’re voting against your pain. You’re voting to create more. You’re going for a kind of witch doctor of politics who is promising things based on magic.”
Dangers of Disclosure
Seattle Times: Of Seattle’s big Trump donors – all 6 of them – 2 are sorry they gave
Gene Balk
A Broadmoor businessman gave Trump’s campaign $1,000 last August. But like the Belltown woman, he is embarrassed now and would only talk if his name wasn’t used, even though it’s in the public record.
At the time, he liked Trump’s vow to keep manufacturing jobs in America. But then Trump made ugly comments about Mexicans and building a wall along the border.
“Knowing what I know now, I definitely don’t support Trump,” he said. “I don’t like the guy … I think he’s got dictatorial tendencies.” He plans to vote for Hillary Clinton,
Activism
Time: We Must Rebuild Our Democracy
Mark Ruffalo and Annie Leonard
From the Flint water crisis to inaction on climate change, from gun control to massive student loan debt, we see the will of the people distorted by a government that does not represent us. And in a year when so many Americans—especially people of color, the LGBTQ community, immigrants and women—face urgent issues that need governmental action, it’s shockingly even harder to vote for some groups than it was 50 years ago.
This is not progress. This is not democracy. It’s no wonder that Princeton scholars who studied over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002 found that the United States can no longer plausibly be called a democracy. “Elites prevail.” Oligarchy.
FEC
MSNBC: Trump’s top lawyer helped open political spending floodgates
Zachary Roth
Lawrence Noble, a former FEC general counsel now with the Campaign Legal Center, which supports stricter campaign finance regulations, points out that the rise of super PACs, which has allowed the uber-wealthy to pour unlimited dollars into electoral politics, wasn’t inevitable after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling. It happened thanks in part to the FEC’s decision — driven by McGahn and its other GOP-appointed commissioners — to interpret Citizens United broadly, rather than seeking to salvage what it could of campaign finance law.
In other words, if you don’t like today’s almost-anything-goes campaign funding landscape, you can lay part of the blame on McGahn.
Campaign Finance Abroad
Huffington Post: European Political Party Think Tanks: Channels for Illegal Campaign Finance?
Till Bruckner
A study released last week by the Observatorio de Think Tanks reports that think tanks tied to political parties in Spain lack financial transparency, and warns that their opacity may violate national laws that mandate disclosure from publicly funded entities.
The findings of the Spanish group are likely to draw lobbying campaigners’ attention to the governance of similar institutions in Germany and other European Union countries where think tanks formally tied to political parties receive significant public funding while also soliciting donations from corporate and private sources.
Influence
Variety: Coming Soon to Campaign Season: The Anti-Hillary Movie
Ted Johnson
Hillary Clinton has noted, on the campaign trail and in debates, that “Citizens United was about me.”
Her point is that she grasps campaign finance reform because it was so personal: The famous court decision has its roots in a 2008 documentary called “Hillary, the Movie,” which, to say the least, was not flattering.
Get ready for a new round of anti-Hillary projects, ones that may not instigate another Supreme Court fight, but could generate some box office business.
Candidates and Campaigns
Bloomberg: Jeb Bush Backs Ted Cruz for President
Michael C. Bender
The endorsement, announced Wednesday in a statement, won’t swing any states for Cruz in the campaign. Instead, its significance is another signal of acceptance from the Republican establishment that had long identified Cruz as the party’s problem child.
“Ted is a consistent, principled conservative who has demonstrated the ability to appeal to voters and win primary contests,” Bush said in a statement. “For the sake of our party and country, we must move to overcome the divisiveness and vulgarity Donald Trump has brought into the political arena…”
Roll Call: Money Can’t Buy Love — or in Some Cases, Even Elections
Alex Roarty
But to conservative campaign finance reformers, this presidential election is proving something different: money in campaigns is overrated.
If money made that much difference in this campaign cycle, they argue, then former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s $100-million war machine would have overcome a candidate like Trump, who’s barely raised any cash.
The clashing interpretations aren’t just an academic exercise. There’s a possibility that Congress’ partisan makeup could change significantly next year. Advocates on both sides are preparing their arguments ahead of a possible legislative debate — convinced that a war of rhetoric could shape what lawmakers do next with a system that has been torn asunder since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.
Wall Street Journal: Trump’s Hats, Sanders’s Music Rights and the Lighter Side of February Fundraising
Rebecca Ballhaus
Those are the newsy details out of the latest Federal Election Commission reports filed by campaigns and super PACs on Sundays. But the filings also offer a window into the quirkier aspects of the election. Here are some more fun—and at times puzzling—findings from the reports:
HATS AND MORE HATS: Mr. Trump, who is primarily self-funding his campaign with loans totaling $25 million through February, spent more than three times as much on hats and other campaign merchandise last month as Mr. Kasich did on his entire payroll. Mr. Kasich has struggled to bolster his coffers, and has raised $12 million over the course of his campaign. Mr. Cruz raised that amount last month alone.
The States
Great Falls Tribune: New lawsuit challenges Montana campaign finance law
Matt Volz, Associated Press
A national gun-rights group has filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down parts of Montana’s new campaign finance law as an unconstitutional violation of free speech.
The National Association for Gun Rights wants to send mailers to voters about political candidates’ position on guns, but worries the law would brand it a political committee subject to disclosure of its donors and spending, the group said in the lawsuit.
The Virginia-based issue-advocacy group lost a similar lawsuit it filed in 2012, three years before state lawmakers strengthened disclosure requirements in the Montana’s campaign laws. Then, the organization was seeking a federal judge’s ruling that it could send mailers criticizing then-gubernatorial candidate Steve Bullock’s position on guns without having to file disclosure reports.
