By Eric Wang

But the Bright Lines proposal not only perpetuates “facts and circumstances,” it makes it worse in many respects. For starters, the proposal calls for a “general speech rule” under which “any communication to any part of the electorate that (a) refers to a clearly identified candidate and (b) reflects a view on that candidate” is considered political intervention. “The view could be positive, negative, or nuanced.”

Despite its use of election-related vocabulary, the rule itself covers much more than election-related activity. To illustrate the proposal’s far-reaching effects, let’s use an example familiar to members of Congress: a newspaper ad urging them to enact gun legislation. If the ad names specific members, it could easily run afoul of the rule.

The proposal offers several “safe harbors” that purport to help groups preserve their tax-exempt status. However, like the project’s name, these “safe harbors” are a misnomer. They are more like throwing nonprofits into shark-infested regulatory waters with nothing more than a life vest, as none of the protections applies to “paid mass media advertising.” Thus, if the sponsor of the gun control ad discussed above is looking to grasp on to a “safe harbor,” it will find none under the Bright Lines proposal.

Read more…

By Joe Trotter

Author and Senior Fellow Eric Wang writes in the report that “The proposed rule would continue to regulate the timing, manner, and content of constitutionally protected speech about matters of public importance. Similarly, the proposal would still put the IRS in charge of regulating and making judgments about such speech, despite the inherent dangers in granting it such powers, not to mention the agency’s longstanding incompetence and lack of interest in doing precisely that.”

Wang goes on to warn that “the guiding principle of the General Speech Rule [in the project’s recommendations] is to simply ban more speech by defining more of it as political campaign intervention. Groups that wish to speak would need to prove after the fact, if they can, the speech is permissible because it is neutral or falls under more complex exemptions. This will greatly chill speech about legislation and issues.”

The proposal purports to clarify vague rules through “safe harbors” that would help groups. These “safe harbors,” much like the project’s name, are a misnomer, as none of the exceptions apply to “paid mass media advertising.” Even if groups forgo paid advertising, they are still likely to run afoul of the rules, as exemptions are often so narrow as to provide no shelter. Advocacy targeted at legislative officials must be done while a “legislative vote or other major legislative activity” is pending.

Read more…

Read analysis here…

By Joe Trotter

Although one would think that the First Amendment is extraordinarily clear about the government’s role in regulating political speech, the fact of the matter is that Americans really do need to retain a lawyer before engaging in what should be their constitutionally protected right.  Allowing politicians to dictate political speech rules concerning who, where, when, and after what forms have been submitted to the government, runs entirely counter to the principles this nation claims to embrace, and often ensnares smaller groups and individuals, who just want to speak about political issues, into potentially devastating legal action.  

Read more…

By Tom Swanson

The Court’s holding that corporations could have First Amendment protection as corporations led some to interpret Justice Kennedy’s opinion as creating a kind of “corporate personhood,” which would allow corporations to enjoy the same Constitutional rights and protections as individuals. Even presidential candidate Mitt Romney infamously quipped, “corporations are people, my friend.” This has only increased “reformers’” anxiety over the effects of the ruling.

However, Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, explains that so-called corporate personhood is essentially irrelevant to the debate. First, he points out that those fears have not exactly come to pass since 2010. In the 2011 case, FCC v. AT&T, “the Court clarified explicitly that the rights of corporations are not equivalent to the rights of living, breathing human beings.” In that case, the Court held that corporations do not enjoy the same right to privacy as individuals are entitled to; if Citizens United had ushered in a new era of robust corporate personhood as many claimed, the Court would not have made such a distinction. This indicates that the Court does not, and perhaps never did, have any intention of placing corporate rights on par with the rights granted to a “natural person.” Shapiro says FCC v. AT&T confirms that “corporations are artificial persons under the law” and “as ‘artificial entities’…have never enjoyed rights equal to a natural person’s. But, that does not mean that corporations have no speech rights, or had none before Citizens United.”

Read more…

By Fredreka Shouten

Organizing for Action, the non-profit advocacy group promoting President Obama’s policies, collected $8.2 million between April and June, the group reported Friday afternoon.

That’s up from nearly $4.9 million during the first three months of the year. More than 237,000 people have donated to the organization, which aims to activate Obama’s campaign supporters to back his second-term agenda on immigration, health care, gun control and other issues.

Read more…

By Josh Hicks

“Our Democratic colleagues should stop trying to derail the investigation by defending IRS officials with distorted claims equating the systematic scrutiny of Tea Party groups with the more routine screening progressive groups received,” Issa said in a statement last week.

In an e-mail on Friday, Issa spokesman Frederick Hill pointed out that the meeting minutes refer to a “Tea Party coordinator” that the agency assigned to review some of the screened applications.

“That line presents further evidence that Tea Party groups were differentiated and segregated from other applications and is consistent with other evidence that Tea Party groups were treated differently,” Hill said. “The fact that there is no indication (on the document or elsewhere) that there was a “Progressives coordinator” is further evidence of disparate treatment.”

Read more…

By Alan Suderman

An analysis of campaign finance records provided by the Center for Responsive Politics found that Thompson and other donors who listed the accounting firm as their employer have given at least $514,350 to federal candidates and political action committees since the 2002 campaign cycle, including $36,900 from Calhoun, the employee who pleaded guilty last month.  

Read more…

By Jennifer Steinhauer

Even in a Congress where bipartisanship and comity are now officially the exceptions to the regular order, the near implosion on Capitol Hill on Thursday was notable, as both chambers erupted in a furor that went on for much of the day.

In the Senate, leaders fought bitterly over proposed changes to Senate rules that would limit the filibuster, with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, trading barbs with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, several times on the Senate floor.

“These are dark days in the history of the Senate,” Mr. McConnell said ominously, adding that the rule change suggested by Mr. Reid would lead to the Democrat’s being remembered as “the worst leader of the Senate ever.” The two men, both crafty lawmakers and once seemingly friends, seem now barely able to countenance each other’s presence.

Read more…

By Matea Gold

“This isn’t a power grab,” McGahn said. “It’s a question of who’s responsible and who’s accountable.”

McGahn invoked the recent scandal at the Internal Revenue Service, whose employees singled out groups with certain words in their names for extra scrutiny.

“You just can’t have an agency where the staff is sort of left to their own devices to come up with lists and do their own thing, because it creates such an opportunity for people to accuse the place of playing political games,” McGahn said.

Read more…