[EL] Crossroads Issue Ad

JBoppjr at aol.com JBoppjr at aol.com
Tue Nov 29 11:26:36 PST 2011


Ellen points out another  thing that confuses me about these two  Revenue 
Rulings. "Political intervention" can only be one thing and in each  Revenue 
Ruling they are attempting to determine what is political  intervention.  So 
how can mention of an election be the most important  factor in determining 
that a communication is political intervention in one, but  be totally 
irrelevant to another. But the IRS is insistent on being oblique  and adamant 
about being opaque, which I find very problematic.  Jim  Bopp
 
 
In a message dated 11/29/2011 2:15:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
ellen.aprill at lls.edu writes:

I agree that the IRS use of facts and circumstances is problematic and  
have recently written a piece urging that IRS and Treasury should want to  
promulgate regulations in this area 
(_http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1927611_ 
(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1927611) ),  but I also think that the two rulings have different purposes.  Rev. 
Rul.  2004-6 is attempting to distinguish lobbying from campaign 
intervention while  Rev. Rul. 2007-41 is attempting to distinguish issue advoacy that 
is not  lobbying from campaign intervention. 
 
  Ellen 


On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:45 AM, <_JBoppjr at aol.com_ 
(mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) > wrote:


Now, it you want to be totally confused, compare Rev. Ruling 2004-6  with 
2007-41   
_Click  here: Internal Revenue Bulletin - June 18, 2007 - Rev. Rul.  
2007-41_ (http://www.irs.gov/irb/2007-25_IRB/ar09.html)   In Rev. Ruling 2007-41, 
the IRS again lists factors to be  consider to distinguish issue advocacy 
from political  intervention.  Inexplicitly, the IRS does not use the same 
factors --  adding some and deleting others--  and they don't even acknowledge 
that  they are doing that.  Most troubling is that they add a new one --  
reference to an election in the communication -- that they didn't mention in  
2004-6, but now say that that factor is the most important  factor!  No 
mention that 2004-6 is superceded either. So it is  impossible to know what it 
is that the IRS is using to make this distinction  and to know what one can 
now rely upon to decide this for ourselves.   Jim Bopp

 
 
In a message dated 11/29/2011 12:56:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_ellen.aprill at lls.edu_ (mailto:ellen.aprill at lls.edu)  writes:

Here is a link to the IRS ruling that attempts to distinguish  issue 
advocacy from political campaign activity.
 
_http://www.irs.gov/irb/2004-04_IRB/ar10.html_ 
(http://www.irs.gov/irb/2004-04_IRB/ar10.html) 
 
   Ellen 


On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Steve Klein <_stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com_ 
(mailto:stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com) > wrote:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material  I 
understand to be embraced within [the functional equivalent of express  
advocacy]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.  But I know it 
when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this  case is not that."


On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Steve Gold <_steve at actblue.com_ 
(mailto:steve at actblue.com) > wrote:

Perhaps I should have specified, a challenger not  holding public office.  
Is that not new?  I'm less  well-informed about attack ads than many, so 
perhaps I simply missed  it.  I'm also not aware of an issue ad that lists the 
phone  number of a campaign headquarters (which seems like a really bad idea 
 if you expect anyone to call it).  


--
Steven Gold
General  Counsel
ActBlue
_steve at actblue.com_ (mailto:steve at actblue.com) 
_617.517.7636_ (tel:617.517.7636) 
_www.actblue.com_ (http://www.actblue.com/) 




 

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Jon Roland <_jon.roland at constitution.org_ 
(mailto:jon.roland at constitution.org) >  wrote:





 
 
On 11/29/2011 09:47 AM, Steve Gold wrote:  
Is this something we should expect to see  more of from non-profits?  

We already see  much of this and have for a long time. Nothing new.  


Why not simply come out and say, don't  vote for Warren?

Good question. It points out the  irrationality of campaign finance 
legislation (aside from it being  unconstitutional).

-- Jon



----------------------------------------------------------

Constitution Society               _http://constitution.org_ 
(http://constitution.org/) 

2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322           _twitter.com/lex_rex_ 
(http://twitter.com/lex_rex) 

Austin, TX 78757 _512/299-5001_ (tel:512/299-5001)   
_jon.roland at constitution.org_ (mailto:jon.roland at constitution.org) 

----------------------------------------------------------




_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_ 
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) 
_http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_ 
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election) 





_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_ 
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) 
_http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_ 
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election) 





-- 
Steve Klein
Staff Attorney & Research Counsel*
Wyoming Liberty Group
_www.wyliberty.org_ (http://www.wyliberty.org/) 

*Licensed to practice law in Illinois. Counsel  to the Wyoming Liberty 
Group pursuant to Rule 5.5(d) of the Wyoming  Rules of Professional Conduct.  




_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_ 
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) 
_http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_ 
(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_ (tel:213-736-1157) 



_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_ 
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) 
_http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_ 
(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/20111129/7453919a/attachment.html>


View list directory