[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/20/11

[Ellen Aprill]

The c-3 can establish a c-4; the c-4 in turn can establish a PAC.  The DC
Circuit in *Branch Ministries *a case from 2000, rejected the argument that
the need to take both these steps in order to express views on candidates
without any limit would be an impermissible burden.  The Circuit Court
relied on both *Regan *and *League of Women Voters *for that conclusion.
*
*
*  *Ellen

The c-4 itself, as I noted earlier, can express views on candidates, so
long as such is not its primary activity.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:

>                 Uh-oh – Mark Scarberry correctly spotted the missing
> “non-“; my apologies, I meant to say:****
>
> ** **
>
>                 If that is so – i.e., if a 501(c)(3) has no way to express
> its views about candidates, even using non-tax-exempt funds, whether
> through an affiliate 501(c)(4) or 527, then I think that is
> unconstitutional (see League of Women Voters).****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Scarberry, Mark [mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:42 PM
> *To:* Volokh, Eugene
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/20/11****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Eugene. Did you mean to write "even using non-tax-exempt funds"? Best,
> Mark****
>
>  ****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh,
> Eugene [VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:20 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/20/11****
>
>                 If that is so – i.e., if a 501(c)(3) has no way to express
> its views about candidates, even using tax-exempt funds, whether through an
> affiliate 501(c)(4) or 527, then I think that is unconstitutional (see
> League of Women Voters).****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* BZall at aol.com [mailto:BZall at aol.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:17 PM
> *To:* Volokh, Eugene; law-election at UCI.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/20/11****
>
>  ****
>
> 501(c)(3)s cannot have PACs, and generally cannot have relationships with
> 527s (there is a tiny subset of limited activities that falls outside this
> ban). Absolute ban; no de minimis exceptions. See, e.g. Rev Rul 2006-17.
> http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html ****
>
>  ****
>
> The usual method to evade this restriction is for the individuals involved
> to set up a non-connected PAC. But that is tricky, and generally does not
> include the control group for the c3 or even substantial influence persons.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> As to Paul Lehto's questions about govt speech and subordinates, that's
> kind of been settled since *Rosenberger v. Rector [etc.] of Univ.
> Virginia *and *Rust v. Sullivan. *Without looking up the cites, it's
> something like: "Government has the right to control speech when it is the
> speaker" and "Government has the right to control speech it is paying for."
> And the substantive logic is that parent and subordinate are not, in fact,
> separate entities with separate speech rights. ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Barnaby Zall
> Of Counsel
> Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP
> 11300 Rockville Pike, Suite 1200
> Rockville, MD 20852
> 301-231-6943 (direct dial)
> www.wjlaw.com <http://www.wj/>
> bzall at aol.com
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice
>
> Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including
> any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
> used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties
> or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> tax-related matter addressed herein.
> _____________________________________________________________
> Confidentiality
>
> The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is
> intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally
> privileged. It is not intended as legal advice, and may not be relied upon
> or used as legal advice. Nor does this communication establish an attorney
> client relationship between us. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original
> message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you.
> ______________________________________________________________  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Ellen P. Aprill
John E. Anderson Professor of Tax Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213-736-1157
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111222/47b9b184/attachment.html>