In the News
PBS NewsHour: Why outside groups are pouring record amounts of money into this year’s midterm elections
Well, a lot of it — a lot of the problem with the disclosure passed in some of the states, it’s generating junk disclosure, where the money that is being recorded has nothing do with the ad that’s on the air.
Our group just won a ruling in the state of Delaware where Delaware was trying to force disclosure for groups that are publishing voter guides, things like Project Vote Smart and that sort of thing, which is I think a ridiculous level of disclosure.
Washington Examiner: IRS should collect taxes, leave political speech alone
Editorial
The proposal was so poorly written that it united groups as diverse as the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans for Prosperity. The former warned that “we can say with confidence that bona fide charitable organizations, may also, under the proposed rule, be forced to seriously ‘hedge and trim’ what should be fully protected speech in their issue advocacy to stay far clear of any potential CRPA. Worse, this chilling effect will be more acute for smaller organizations that do not have access to legal expertise in this area.”
Speaking for the latter, Levi Russell said “because the proposed rules are so sweeping, categorical, and prohibitive, they will almost certainly affect organizations both large and small with equally draconian effects.” And the Center for Competitive Politics said “the proposal regulates far more speech than can be justified, under either administrative law or the First Amendment, given Supreme Court precedent over the past several decades.”
CCP
Background: Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris
By Luke Wachob
Does California’s attorney general have the power to ban a nonprofit organization from asking for donations unless it hands over a list of its past supporters for inspection, even if the group has no involvement in elections? That simple question is at the heart of Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris.
Federal tax law and Supreme Court precedent concerning First Amendment protections say no, but this has not stopped California Attorney General Kamala Harris from making such requests.
The Attorney General is demanding that nonprofit groups, including the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), an educational nonprofit corporation organized under §501(c)(3), provide unredacted copies of their Schedule B, an addendum to the tax Form 990 filed with the Internal Revenue Service that lists contributors’ names and addresses. If CCP fails to comply, the organization will be banned from asking Californians for any financial support.
The Attorney General’s requirement creates a stark choice for CCP and many other nonprofit groups in the same situation. If CCP opts to protect the privacy of its contributors and forgoes fundraising efforts in California, being unable to speak with potential donors in the state will irreparably harm the organization and its donors. Without the ability to solicit funds from the most populous state in the nation, CCP’s ability to defend the First Amendment nationwide will be curtailed.
For more information on the case, check out CCP’s growing resource page at this link.
SBA List Headlines Disappointingly Misleading
By Brad Smith
“Court to Weigh Challenge to Ban on Campaign Lies” blares the AP, one of many headlines disappointingly framing SBA List v. Driehaus in very stark, somewhat misleading terms.
In the case at hand, the statements made by the Susan B. Anthony List were actually, literally true. In fact, the most that one could say is that SBA List did not frame the issue in a way that then Congressman Driehaus would have liked.
But that aside, the issue in the case is not the “right to lie,” but the ability of government to empower a commission to place legal sanctions behind the type of fact checking work done by Politifact, Glenn Kessler, and others. But there is a key difference. The fact checking by journalists makes a real effort to honestly look at the claims. The fact checking done by government officials is often motivated by political considerations, not the truth.
IRS
Townhall: BREAKING: New Emails Show Lois Lerner Was in Contact With DOJ About Prosecuting Tax Exempt Groups
By Katie Pavlich
According to new IRS emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from Judicial Watch, former head of tax exempt groups at the IRS Lois Lerner was in contact with the Department of Justice in May 2013 about whether tax exempt groups could be criminally prosecuted for “lying” about political activity.
“I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS,” Lerner wrote in a May 8, 2013 email to former Nikole C. Flax, who was former-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller’s chief of staff.
“I think we should do it – also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?” Flaxresponded on May 9, 2013.
Washington Examiner: Ron Paul group to defy IRS
By JOEL GEHRKE
Ron Paul’s nonprofit Campaign for Liberty will fight the Internal Revenue Service’s demand that it reveal its donor list to the agency, despite having already been fined for refusing to do so.
“There is no legitimate reason for the IRS to know who donates to Campaign for Liberty,” Megan Stiles, the communications director at Campaign for Liberty, told the Washington Examiner in an email on Tuesday. “We believe the First Amendment is on our side as evidenced by cases such as NAACP v. Alabama and International Union UAW v. National Right to Work. Many 501(c)(4) organizations protect the privacy of their donors in the very same way as Campaign for Liberty. For some reason the IRS has now chosen to single out Campaign for Liberty for special attention. We plan to fight this all the way.”
Washington Post: Conservatives not swayed by IRS plan to revise proposed nonprofit rule
By Josh Hicks
“The commissioner has the ability to stop the IRS from stepping on the First Amendment altogether, and that’s exactly what he should do,” McConnell said in a statement on Tuesday.
Cleta Mitchell, a conservative election-law expert, said in an interview on Tuesday that the Obama administration has been working “behind closed doors” and “in secret” to develop new rules that would hinder nonprofit advocacy groups with right-leaning policy positions.
“It doesn’t give me comfort that [Koskinen] says he’s re-writing the draft regulations,” Mitchell said. “This is a flawed process that is going to continue to produce a flawed product.”
Independent Groups
NY Times: Bloomberg Plans a $50 Million Challenge to the N.R.A.
By JEREMY W. PETERS
Michael R. Bloomberg, making his first major political investment since leaving office, plans to spend $50 million this year building a nationwide grass-roots network to motivate voters who feel strongly about curbing gun violence, an organization he hopes can eventually outmuscle the National Rifle Association.
Mr. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, said gun control advocates need to learn from the N.R.A. and punish those politicians who fail to support their agenda — even Democrats whose positions otherwise align with his own.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
NY Times: An Indecent Burial
By Linda Greenhouse
The case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, ended in a fizzle when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor refused at the last minute to give the chief justice her vote. It’s little remembered today.
But I thought of it two weeks ago when I read the Supreme Court’s latest campaign finance ruling, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. This time, five justices did actually manage to toss something out the window: the post-Watergate system of campaign finance regulation.
Only Justice Clarence Thomas, who refused to sign the four-justice plurality opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. because it didn’t go far enough, would have explicitly overturned the court’s foundational precedents in this area. The chief justice tried in his own opinion to persuade readers that while striking down the aggregate limits on contributions to federal candidates, parties and political committees, the court was actually leaving a meaningful regulatory edifice still standing — one that could remain standing, despite the expansive “money is speech” view of the First Amendment and the extremely cramped definition of corruption that the McCutcheon opinion embraced.
The Atlantic: John Roberts and the Color of Money: Applying the history of white supremacy in America to the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon decision
By TOM LEVENSON
But that first-order take on this latest from the Supreme Court’s right wing misses a crucial dimension. It isn’t just rich folks who benefit from the Roberts Court’s view that money equals speech. Those who gain possess other key identifiers. For one thing, they form a truly a tiny elite. As oral arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC were being prepared last fall, the Public Campaign delivered a report on all those who approached the money limits the court struck down. They amount to just 1,219 people in the U.S.—that’s four in every 1,000,000 of our population.
Unsurprisingly, most of the report simply reinforces the main theme of the reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision: This is one more step toward securing governance of, for, and by rich people and their well-compensated servants.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Real Clear Politics: Christie: Campaign Finance System Is “Ridiculous”
By Scott Conroy
SOMERSET, N.J. — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Tuesday called for the abolishment of current federal and statewide campaign finance rules, and instead supported allowing unlimited donations to individual candidates with a public notification required within 48 hours.
“If somebody, you know, wants to write me a $100,000 check for my campaign, great,” Christie said of the system he is proposing. “Forty-eight hours later, everybody who has access to the Internet’s going to know that Mr. Smith gave me $100,000. And if all of a sudden I start talking in a way after it happened that’s favorable to Mr. Smith’s business, then you’re going to know that my price is $100,000.”
Christie’s comments came at a town-hall meeting in response to a student’s question related to a recent Supreme Court decision. That 5-4 ruling struck down aggregate limits on the amount individuals could previously contribute to candidates, political parties and political action committees over a two-year period.
WFB: RNC Sues IRS for FOIA Delays
The Republican National Committee (RNC) has filed a lawsuit against the IRS for delaying its response to the committee’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The committee sought information on the IRS’ review process for the tax exempt 501(c)4 organizations after last year’s reports of the agency targeting conservative groups. The request was filed on May 21, 2013, and the IRS has requested numerous delays to respond over the last 226 business days, according to the committee’s statement.
