In the News
Wall Street Journal: Reaction to the IRS Apology
By Jacob GershmanDavid Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, a pro-free speech group, draws a much different lesson in a comment to Law Blog:The IRS has a long history of being used by presidents of both parties to attack political enemies. It is ill suited to the job of monitoring advocacy groups because at is heart it is a tax collecting agency. It has little, if any expertise in First Amendment law….Campaign finance law enforcement should be done by the FEC, and not other agencies like the IRS that have other missions.
Politico: FEC revolving door spins ever so slowly
By Byron TauThere’s no single reason for the FEC’s current state. But a big part of it is the grueling Senate confirmation process, the professional opportunity costs of giving up a successful law practice and the lack of plum landings after their term is up.“I do think it makes it more of a challenge,” Brad Smith, the founder of the Center for Competitive Politics and a former commissioner, said about recruiting candidates for the job. “You’re asking people to make more of a sacrifice.”
USA Today: GOP reaction in IRS case spurs calls for probe, apology
By Gregory Korte, Fredreka Schouten and Tom Vanden BrookDavid Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, which favors fewer campaign-finance regulations, said the IRS incident “proves Congress should not pass pending legislation to give the IRS more power over advocacy or political groups,”
CCP
IRS Targeted Groups For ‘Additional Review’ Based on Ideology
By David KeatingThese groups spent thousands of dollars and countless hours responding to an IRS assault on their political beliefs.Today’s revelation is not the first massive violation by the agency. In the last year alone, the IRS has illegally disclosed confidential tax return information of politically sensitive non-profit groups on at least three occasions involving an unknown number of organizations.This incident proves Congress should not pass pending legislation to give the IRS more power over advocacy or political groups. The agency abuses that power, doesn’t understand the need to exercise it with caution, or is simply incompetent to exercise it with care.
UPDATE: Libertarian National Committee v. FEC
By David SilversThe standard justification for contribution limits is that they prevent some risk of corruption or “the appearance of corruption.” LNC makes the simple and logical contention that Mr. Burrington’s bequest does not present the same alleged risk of corruption because, simply put, Mr. Burrington is deceased. Without any clear threat of corruption, there is not a plausible connection between the “harm” of a bequest and the law.
Free Speech and the IRS
While it’s commendable the IRS has addressed and presumably corrected the problem in Ohio, this story should serve as a reminder that local governmental offices may be the organizations in need of some oversight, rather than the non-profit groups with an ideological bent that are already regulated and, apparently, being watched nearly to the point of harassment.
Independent Groups
Wall Street Journal: IRS Apologizes for Scrutiny of Conservative Groups
By JOHN D. MCKINNON And COREY BOLESWASHINGTON—The Internal Revenue Service acknowledged Friday that it had targeted conservative groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.The agency apologized for “mistakes,” but said its actions weren’t politically motivated.
Wall Street Journal: Wider Problems Found at IRS
By JOHN D. MCKINNON and SIOBHAN HUGHESThe Internal Revenue Service’s scrutiny of conservative groups went beyond those with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names—as the agency admitted Friday—to also include ones worried about government spending, debt or taxes, and even ones that lobbied to “make America a better place to live,” according to new details of a government probe.The investigation also revealed that a high-ranking IRS official knew as early as mid-2011 that conservative groups were being inappropriately targeted—nearly a year before then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told a congressional committee the agency wasn’t targeting conservative groups.
ABC News: Tea Party Rejects IRS Apology, Republicans Vow Investigation
By Abby PhillipSome liberal and watchdog groups believed that the IRS wasn’t doing enough to review groups that they believed might be flouting their 501(c)4 tax-exempt status in the 2012 election.“That’s the most interesting thing about this: They were actually doing it,” said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance law expert and former counsel of the Federal Election Commission. “Now that they have done it, to some degree, it looks like they stepped on a pile off dog doo.”
Washington Post: A new recipe for election reform
Disclosure
By Bob Bauer and Trevor Potter
Reforms appear destined to fail unless they rest on three key points: They should focus not on further restricting funding for political activity but rather on broadening avenues of citizen participation; they should look beyond contributions to parties and candidates to take into account other ways that money influences politics, including through the intersection of lobbying and political funding; and they should be informed by the experiences of states and localities.
Read more…
Disclosure
Chamber of Commerce: Letter Opposing S. 791, Follow the Money Act of 2013
This bill raises significant constitutional concerns. S. 791 would dramatically expand government regulation of political speech. The bill aims to shelter candidates for federal office from the criticism of independent groups by raising considerable barriers groups’ ability to communicate with the public about candidates’ policy positions.To begin, the bill would attempt to regulate enormous amounts of independent political speech by broadly defining “independent federal election related activity.” This definition, which would trigger the bill’s registration, reporting, and disclaimer requirements, is so broadly drafted that it would encompass the activity of groups that would be merely contemplating speaking. Under this bill, activities such as fundraising, polling, and message testing could trigger the disclosure of a group’s funding, regardless of whether the group actually engages in future political speech. As a result, S. 791 would require disclosure even before a group speaks. There is no government interest sufficient to justify disclosure of these types of pre-speech activities.
Tax Financing
Heritage: House Bill Ends the $3 Public Election Tax Check-Off, Spends “Savings”
By Hans von Spakovsky and Emily Goff
H.R. 1724, the Kids First Research Act of 2013, sponsored by Representative Gregg Harper (R–MS), would end the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF). That’s the good news. But then the bill would authorize spending existing PECF funds on a new 10-year pediatric research initiative via the National Institutes of Health (NIH).While ending this public election financing program is a good idea, turning around and authorizing funding for another program wipes out that progress and sets up a whole new constituency for government spending. Then there is the complication of diverting these earmarked funds to a completely different purpose, thus breaking the agreement with taxpayers who voluntarily “checked the box.”
Candidates, Politicians and Parties
Wall Street Journal: GOP Demands More Answers on IRS Targeting
By Corey Boles“I call on the White House to conduct a transparent, government-wide review aimed at assuring the American people that these thuggish practices are not underway at the IRS or elsewhere in the administration against anyone, regardless of their political views,” Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor earlier Friday.House Speaker John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, said the incident echoed “some of the most shameful abuses of government powers” in the last century.
State and Local
Alabama –– AL.com: Bill before House today repeal state limit on corporate campaign contributions; Lawmaker says it’s a ‘pretend’ cap
By Kim ChandlerCorporations would be allowed to make contributions “in the same manner that an individual is permitted to make.” There is no limit on donations from an individual.Alabama law officially sets a $500 limit for corporate contributions. However, a 1989 attorney general’s opinion interpreted that to mean companies could give each PAC $500, multiplied by the number of elections held in the state in any given year.
New York –– Queens Chronicle: Liu campaign likely to suffer over convictions
By Peter MastrosimoneHow much impact the case will have is an open question. But according to two political science experts in Queens, the Liu campaign faces multiple challenges arising from the convictions last week of Jia “Jenny” Hou, his former treasurer, and Xing Wu “Oliver” Pan, a fundraising “bundler,” who secured donations from other parties that then went to the campaign.
