In the News
Wall Street Journal: Making IRS Abuse Official
Center for Competitive Politics chairman Bradley A. Smith on why the IRS’s proposed rules for 501(c)(4) organizations will target conservative groups and curb free speech.
The Mark Levin Show: Featuring Bradley A. Smith
IRS segment at 38 minutes, interview at 55 minutes.
Oversight and Reform: Doubling Down on IRS Targeting
Featuring CCP Legal Director Allen Dickerson
Washington Post: An amazing number of people care about a single IRS rule change
By Matea Gold
The IRS, which plans to go through each one of the comments, is not in for a lot of positive feedback. According to an analysis by the conservative Center for Competitive Politics, which analyzed every 100th comment, 94.37% of the feedback is partially or fully against the proposal. “The quantity is impressive,” said David Keating, the center’s president. “But the quality of comments and the diversity of political views that all agree the proposed regulations are misguided is incredible.”
The suggested rules, which attempt to lay out clear boundaries for when a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization veers into political activity, have been lambasted by groups as varied as the ACLU and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In a 36-page comment filed Thursday, a coalition of the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU and some of the other biggest unions in the country wrote that they “have grave concerns” about what the regulation would mean for labor unions, which are set up under a different section of the tax code. Even campaign finance advocates, who have applauded the IRS for seeking to regulate nonprofits, have suggested fixes.
Events
Cato Institute: Censorship Through the Tax Code: How the Proposed IRS Rules for Social Welfare Groups Stifles Political Activity
March 4th, 2014
Featuring David Keating, President, Center for Competitive Politics; Laurence E. Gold, Partner, Trister, Ross, Schadler & Gold, PLLC; Gabriel Rottman, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union; and Cleta Mitchell, Foley & Lardner, LLP; moderated by Trevor Burrus, Research Fellow, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.
On the Friday after Thanksgiving, the IRS quietly proposed major changes to the rules governing nonprofit social welfare groups, or 501(c)(4)s. For years, pundits and politicians have attacked (c)(4)s as so-called “dark money” groups that are illegitimately trying to influence elections. Last year, Congress heard testimony that the IRS had targeted conservative (c)(4)s with demands to answer onerous questions and to fill out endless forms, purportedly in order to assess the scope of a (c)(4)’s “political activity.” Now, with the proposed rules, the IRS seems intent on codifying many of those practices and thus greatly limiting what (c)(4)s can do. Get-out-the-vote initiatives, candidate scorecards, and voter registration are just some of the activities that, under the proposed rules, will be considered “candidate-related political activity,” even though no candidate is directly supported or opposed. The proposed rules have both frightened and baffled people from all over the political spectrum, and the IRS has received a record number of public comments. Why has the IRS decided to heavily regulate political activity via the tax code, how do the proposed rules work, and how will the political landscape change if these rules are codified as proposed? Ideologically diverse panelists will be discussing these questions, as well as the broader issue of outside election spending.
Independent Groups
NY Times: Big-Money Donors Demand Larger Say in Campaign Strategy
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
The Republican donors who have financed the party’s vast outside-spending machine are turning against the consultants and political strategists they once lavished with hundreds of millions of dollars.
In recent months, they have begun holding back checks from Republican “super PACs” like American Crossroads, unsatisfied with the groups’ explanations for their failure to unseat President Obama or win back the Senate. Others, less willing than in the past to defer to the party elders and former congressional staff members who control the biggest groups, are demanding a bigger voice in creating strategy in exchange for their continued support.
Washington Post: The liberal agenda: Being good to liberals
By George Will
Concerning that portion, there will now be a somewhat awkward pause in the chorus of liberal lamentations about there being “too much money” in politics because of wealthy conservatives. During this intermission, the chorus will segue into hosannas of praise for liberal billionaire Tom Steyer. The New York Times says he plans to solicit $50 million from similarly situated liberals, and to match this with $50 million of his own, and to spend the pile to “pressure federal and state officials to enact climate change measures through a hard-edge campaign of attack ads against governors and lawmakers.” The Times says Steyer’s organization, NextGen Climate Action, is “among the largest outside groups in the country, similar in scale to the conservative political network overseen by Charles and David Koch.”
Washington Post: Democrats embrace super PACs, but some fear lack of focus on midterm elections
By Matea Gold
As Democratic officials rely more than ever on the big-money super PACs they once scorned, party strategists and donors are caught in sharp disagreements over how to use the newly influential independent organizations.
Tensions are simmering over whether Priorities USA Action and other Democratic groups that can accept unlimited contributions are too focused on the 2016 presidential race and a potential Hillary Rodham Clinton candidacy, even as Democrats face a costly, uphill fight this year to retain a thin Senate majority and gain seats in the House.
Tax Financing
NY Times (LTE): Not Public Financing’s Fault
By Michel Waldman
In her column about Arizona’s proposed antigay law, now vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer, Gail Collins unfairly blames Arizona’s Clean Elections Law for the rise of political extremism in that state (“The State of Arizona,” Feb. 27).
FEC
Perkins Coie: FEC Deadlocks Again over Disclaimers on Mobile Phone Advertisements, with No Resolution in Sight
By Brian Svoboda and Nicholas Bauer
The irresistible force met the immovable object Thursday, as the Federal Election Commission deadlocked again on whether disclaimer requirements applied to advertisements displayed through new technologies. The deadlock left no clear path toward a common understanding of the disclaimer requirements, with the Democratic-selected Commissioners contending that the law permits no exception for mobile phone ads, and the Republican Commissioners contending that applying the requirements would violate the law and burden speech.
