IRS
Wall Street Journal: The IRS Hit List
Editorial Board
Three years on, the Internal Revenue Service has finally handed over its list of the organizations the agency’s tax-exempt division targeted for their political views. All it took to shake the disclosure from the agency were dozens of lawsuits and a federal appeals-court order.
In a court filing last month, the IRS produced a list of 426 groups that were singled out for special scrutiny and in some cases had approval of their application for tax-exempt status delayed. The filing was in response to a lawsuit by NorCal Tea Party Patriots, which has struggled for three years to get the agency to acknowledge the names of those it mistreated, so that the targets have the option of joining the litigation. The targets run the gamut from big outfits such as the Tea Party Patriots to local groups that used the “tea party” moniker.
Free Speech
Wall Street Journal: Notable & Quotable: The Milton Friedman Prize
Flemming Rose
This is the fundamental nature of the “I am in favor of free speech, but” position.
Thus we need a noninstrumental or nonutilitarian argument for free speech. Freedom of speech is a good in and of itself. It has intrinsic value.
Viewing free speech as an individual right rather than a mechanism to achieve a goal will lead to the conclusion that there are too many restraints on this liberty, while the “I am in favor of free speech, but” point of view always will be able to justify further limitations on speech.
Time: Free Speech Is Central to Our Dignity as Humans
William Ruger
This marketplace, to be sure, can be an uncomfortable place. Yet even “bad,” “wrong” or “hate” speech has value. As Mill wisely noted, limiting speech harms the very people who are doing the stifling, because even if their opponents are wrong, “they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
Economist: Curbs on free speech are growing tighter. It is time to speak out
Opinion polls reveal that in many countries support for free speech is lukewarm and conditional. If words are upsetting, people would rather the government or some other authority made the speaker shut up. A group of Islamic countries are lobbying to make insulting religion a crime under international law. They have every reason to expect that they will succeed.
So it is worth spelling out why free expression is the bedrock of all liberties. Free speech is the best defence against bad government. Politicians who err (that is, all of them) should be subjected to unfettered criticism. Those who hear it may respond to it; those who silence it may never find out how their policies misfired. As Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate, has pointed out, no democracy with a free press ever endured famine.
The Hill: The unprecedented campaign against free speech
Mark Holden
At nearly every level of government, freedom of speech is under unprecedented attack. Many on the political left now seek to silence their opponents and reorder society in accordance with their personal beliefs. This is in many ways the single greatest threat to America’s experiment in self-governance.
This coordinated campaign has been underway for years. Its creation can be traced to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, when the court refused to accept the Obama administration’s argument that it could ban books, mailers, advertisements or anything else that contained a political message during an election campaign. This simple ruling ensured that Americans retained the fundamental right to use free speech to praise or criticize a candidate running for office…
In fact, liberal politicians and activists swiftly made opposition to Citizens United a defining part of their platform from the moment the Supreme Court issued its decision.
Dangers of Disclosure
The Agitator: Protecting Michael Moore AND The Koch Brothers
Roger Craver
And thus in a nutshell the importance of protecting donor anonymity and privacy. This time it’s the Koch brothers under attack and deserving of protection. But at other times it’s the risk of exposure and condemnation to donors to civil rights, gay rights and women’s rights causes. I remember well those ‘good old days’.
But I digress. What’s going on here is that California has taken Schedule B of the IRS’ Form 990, which under federal law may not be disclosed and posted it on the AG’s website. So much for Attorney General Harris’ — liberal or not — respect for the law.
So now, this whole mess has ended up in court, as well it should. And before Congressional committees, as well it should. At 17 organizations per page that was publicly exposed, that’s 1,972 organizations whose donors were exposed without either the donors’ or the organizations’ consent. Shameful. And illegal.
Omaha World-Herald: Few people know Nebraska’s quietest heir — and he’s determined to keep it that way
Matthew Hansen
This began as a pretty straightforward column. A 70-year-old man named Fred Cunningham, a man who lists his address as Arthur — a tiny, isolated town inside the least-populated county in Nebraska — had become one of only four Nebraskans to donate $250,000 or more to a federal campaign over the past four election cycles.
One is the trust controlled by trucking titan Clarence Werner. Another is Wallace Weitz, the Omaha investor extraordinaire. The third is Marlene Ricketts, wife of TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts and mother of Gov. Pete Ricketts.
The fourth is Cunningham, who no one at The World-Herald had ever heard of. One of the bedrock principles of journalism is follow the money, and so we did.
The Media
More Soft Money Hard Law: Campaign Finance and the Threat of “Darkness”
Bob Bauer
The New York Times Editorial Board has returned, as it reliably does, to the subject of money in politics. It is taking stock of campaign finance in this year of the unexpected, and it argues that “big money” has adjusted its strategy, especially in the Republican ranks, where donors spooked by Trump and fearful of loss are supposedly moving money “down ballot.” This may prove to the case, or it may not, but the editorial underscores the point that the more times change, the more certain arguments remain the same and yet, for that very reason, may raise unintended questions.
FEC
Cleveland Plain Dealer: FEC Republicans defend halting Murray Energy probe
Sabrina Eaton
The statement from FEC chairman Matthew S. Peterson and commissioners Lee E. Goodman and Caroline C. Hunter said “unsworn, anonymous, hearsay statements” in the New Republic article didn’t warrant pursuing the company, particularly when the company provided FEC with fundraising solicitations that complied with the law.
The three FEC members whose votes ended the investigation also said the allegedly inappropriate solicitations “took place from six to nine years ago, outside the statute of limitations.”
“Soliciting another person to give money to a candidate or political committee may naturally be uncomfortable to the solicited individual,” the trio said. “That is no less true in the context of a supervisor-subordinate relationship. But a solicitation is at its core a protected First Amendment activity.”
Lobbying
CBS News: Donald Trump would have “no problem” banning lobbyists and big donors from working in his administration
Tim Perry
In an interview for Face the Nation, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump indicated that he would “have no problem” banning lobbyists and big donors from working in his administration. Trump also told Face the Nation host John Dickerson that he will continue turning down large donations, but that he intends to raise money for the Republican Party.
Candidates and Campaigns
New York Times: Donald Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say
Adam Liptak
Other legal scholars said they were worried about Mr. Trump’s commitment to the First Amendment. He has taken particular aim at The Washington Post and its owner, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.
“He owns Amazon,” Mr. Trump said in February. “He wants political influence so Amazon will benefit from it. That’s not right. And believe me, if I become president, oh do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems.”
…On the other hand, said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, Mr. Trump’s comments betrayed a troubling disregard for free expression.
“There are very few serious constitutional thinkers who believe public figures should be able to use libel as indiscriminately as Trump seems to think they should,” Professor Somin said. “He poses a serious threat to the press and the First Amendment.”.
The States
Fox & Hounds: Add Accountability to Campaigns by Lifting Contribution Limits
Joel Fox
About $28-million dollars has been spent in California this primary election through Independent Expenditures, a new record by far. The candidates do not control that money; outside special interests not part of the candidate’s campaign craft the messages delivered by the Independent Expenditure efforts. Yet, it is the candidates who are held accountable by the voters. They should have the resources to make their case to voters and then let the voters decide the candidates’ fates, hold them accountable.
Rock Hill Herald: S.C. ethics reforms stalled after 4 years of debate
Jamie Self
Of the two ethics bills lawmakers still could pass, one proposal would end the practice of state lawmakers exclusively investigating ethics complaints against themselves, shifting investigations to a revamped State Ethics Commission that supporters say will allow independent watchdogs to oversee lawmakers.
Another bill would require lawmakers to disclose some information about their private income.
Differing versions of both bills have passed the House and Senate, and now are being reviewed by a panel of lawmakers tasked with ironing out the two chambers’ differences.
Manchester Union Leader: Clean it up: NH campaign finance laws are a mess
Editorial Board
Campaign finance laws are castle walls erected by incumbents to keep the barbarians out. Both parties have had control of the House, Senate and governor’s office over the years, and neither did anything to clean up the mess. If you were overly cynical, you might even conclude that some politicians are more interested in appearing to support transparency than actually delivering it.
