IRS
More Soft Money Hard Law: Fallout from the IRS Rulemaking on Tax-Exempt “Candidate-Related Activity”
By Bob Bauer
The flooding of the IRS with criticisms of the proposed rulemaking has shown that, on this issue at least, Washington is experiencing unity across party and ideological lines. The basic complaint, of course, is that the draft rule is too broad, chilling or preventing or just burdening legitimate political speech or activity. It is a remarkable proceeding. Activities that have been the targets of soft money reform for years—issue advertising and various other voter education activities—are now being vigorously defended against government regulation. In the short run, the result may be a rulemaking indefinitely delayed or, in content, much changed.
But, apart from the question of whether or how this draft might be revised to address these critiques, the hostile reception to the proposals may influence the course of the campaign finance debate in other ways.
Wall Street Journal: Cummings, Issa Do Battle at IRS Hearing
By John D. McKinnon
A House hearing on the Internal Revenue Service scandal ended in acrimony, as the ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) accused Republicans of a “one-sided investigation” and GOP members walked out.
Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) ended the hearing after the lone witness, former IRS official Lois Lerner, declined to answer several of his questions, citing her Fifth Amendment privilege.
Mr. Cummings insisted on making his own opening statement, criticizing what he regards as the political bent of the GOP-led investigation.
Independent Groups
CPI: Super PACs, nonprofits fueling GOP strife
By Dave Levinthal
As the Republican Party marches toward a tea party vs. establishment brawl, or even hurtles toward political civil war, conservative super PACs and nonprofits are helping bankroll the journey.
One in five dollars spent by all super PACs, nonprofit groups and the like on election advocacy came from identifiably conservative groups attacking Republican congressional candidates, according to a Center for Public Integrityanalysis of federal campaign disclosures covering Jan. 1 to Feb. 28.
Liberal political groups, in contrast, didn’t spent a dime roughing up Democrats during this time, focusing their efforts exclusively on promoting Democrats or bashing Republicans.
NY Times: How a Campaign Organization Became a ‘Social Welfare’ Group
By DAVID FIRESTONE
After Barack Obama was re-elected, his campaign organization, Obama for America, underwent a tax-code morph and became a “social welfare” group called Organizing for Action, intended to support the president’s initiatives. It kept the same initials, the same circular logo, and many officials who had worked on the campaign and in the Obama White House. Their website is called barackobama.com.
It calls itself a “grassroots organization” and pledges “to restore the balance of power away from the special interests.” But it has strayed from that pledge and gone the other direction.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
Forbes: Ohio Has a Ministry of Truth, And It Isn’t Much Better Than George Orwell’s
By Trevor Burrus
Can politics be cleaned of lies, spin, and allegations? Can a government agency—an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth”—police political rhetoric in order to determine what is true, what is false, and what is, as Stephen Colbert would say, “truthy”?
That is just what the Supreme Court is considering in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, which will be argued in April. The case is a challenge to Ohio’s bizarre statute prohibiting knowingly or recklessly making “false” statements about a political candidate or ballot initiative. In other words, the Ohio Election Commission (OEC) essentially runs a ministry of truth to which any citizen can submit a complaint. Amazingly, twenty other states have such laws.
Disclosure
NY Times: New Democratic Strategy Goes After Koch Brothers
By ASHLEY PARKER
But Democrats are embarking on a broad effort that aims to unmask the press-shy siblings and portray them, instead, as a pair of villains bent on wrecking progressive politics.
On Thursday, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is starting a digital campaign that will use Internet ads and videos, as well as social media, to tie Republican Senate candidates to the policies and actions of the Koch brothers. Its slogan: “The G.O.P. is addicted to Koch” (pronounced coke).
NY Times: Billion Dollar Babies
By Gail Collins
My question for today is: Do you think it’s fair to call these guys oligarchs? We have been thinking about oligarchs lately since our attention has been fixed on the former Soviet Union, which is Oligarch Central. In fact, the new Ukrainian government just responded to the tensions in its eastern region by dispatching two billionaires to serve as provincial governors.
“Oligarch” sounds more interesting than “superrich person with undue political influence.” The Koch brothers have a genius for being publicly boring, while plowing vast sums of money into political action groups designed to make it difficult for anybody to make a good estimate of how much they’ve given to promote their goal of, um, saving the country.
Note: Has the times become self aware?
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Fox: ‘Pay to play’? Clinton deal with Univision has Republicans raising questions
By Joseph Weber
A deal between Univision and Hillary Clinton to promote childhood education is raising questions, again, about whether TV networks are effectively giving free airtime to the possible Democratic presidential candidate.
Univision, the country’s No. 1 rated Spanish-language network, officially announced the partnership last month in East Harlem, N.Y. The “multi-year partnership” between the network and the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is part of a similar project titled “Too Small to Fail.”
State and Local
New York –– Crain’s New York: City agency secretly settled campaign finance suit
By Chris Bragg
The city Campaign Finance Board demands rigorous transparency from candidates for public office, but itself secretly settled a botched case last year, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. The matter could also have implications for several ongoing board investigations into super PAC spending during the 2013 elections.
The case involved Joe Lazar, who lost a City Council special election in 2010 to Councilman David Greenfield, D-Brooklyn. Last February, Mr. Lazar was ordered to fork over nearly $237,000 in fines and repayments after a Campaign Finance Board audit found that he had received extensive outside, coordinated campaign help from Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a close political ally. Outside groups are not allowed to offer coordinated assistance to candidates.
