[EL] Lerner in her own words - "everyone" "screaming"

Wed Aug 7 08:25:11 PDT 2013

That is what the scandal has always been about.

It is what we have been saying for years.

This is the approach your last op-ed in the *WSJ* might have taken.
Certainly not too late to pen another,

Steve

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

>  And that is, to me, what the scandal has always been about. It's not
> that there was some White House order (although that wouldn't overly shock
> me). It's that the White House and the President publicly and repeatedly
> sounded the "alarm," and the need to get after these groups. It's that
> members of Congress repeatedly wrote to the IRS to demand that it take
> action or inquire  why it hadn't (and we know what such an inquiry means).
> It is that Democrats held show hearings all over Capitol Hill, wherever any
> committee could with any remote legitimacy claim some jurisdiction, to
> excoriate these groups. It is that Democrats publicly and private pressured
> the SEC and the FCC, as well as the IRS, to take action because the FEC
> would not and Congress was unable to pass DISCLOSE.
>
>  Of course the IRS responds to such posturing, inquiries, and
> vilification. That is the problem. And it continues, as Sen. Whitehouse
> held a hearing this spring openly accusing groups of violating the law,
> with no evidence; as Senator Levin promised to "investigate" these
> conservative organizations; as Senator Durbin sent out mass letters
> yesterday demanding to know if various persons and groups had in any way
> funded ALEC.
>
>  There was what reformers would call "an astroturf" campaign, headed up
> by prominent Democratic officeholders and aides, to drum an aura of crisis
> about the political participation of their political opponents, and then to
> demand that the huge federal bureaucracy step in to "do something" about
> it, in light of the fact that Congress could not muster the votes.
>
>  That is the problem, and it is exactly what we've been warning about for
> years would be one of the many problems with campaign finance regulation.
>
>  *Bradley A. Smith*
>
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>
> *   Professor of Law*
>
> *Capital University Law School*
>
> *303 E. Broad St.*
>
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>
> *614.236.6317*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx*
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Trevor Potter
> [tpotter at capdale.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 07, 2013 11:04 AM
> *To:* Jason Torchinsky; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Lerner in her own words - "everyone" "screaming"
>
>   Jason
>
>
>
> I know you are relying on a Breitbart piece, and it has an obvious point
> of view. However, even that piece does not say that there was any pressure
> from the “White House” on the IRS, and Breitbart is fair enough to note
> that there was a great deal of press coverage and editorials in 2010 about
> new 501 c4s which appeared to be doing  nothing but huge amounts election
> activity in 2010. As the article states:
>
>
>
> “TIGTA's report<http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.html>contains a few key redactions which conceal precisely how the scrutiny of
> Tea Party groups began. Reading between the lines it seems<http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/06/03/What-Initiated-the-IRS-Targeting-of-the-Tea-Party>media attention played a role. Plans by a Tea Party group to create a new
> 501(c)(4) were featured in stories at the NY Times<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/us/politics/06teaparty.html?ref=politics&_r=1&>and
> NPR <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123859296> just
> a couple weeks after Obama's statements about Citizens United. These
> stories apparently caught the attention of the IRS which regularly monitors
> news stories to be aware of developing issues.”
>
>
>
> Thus, the “everyone” wanting the IRS to “do something” in context appears
> to refer to the quite public and common outrage reported on in the press
> that essentially political entities were using 501 c 4 status to avoid
> disclosure of their donors which would be required under election law.
>
>
>
> Trevor Potter
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jason
> Torchinsky
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:47 AM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] Lerner in her own words - "everyone" "screaming"
>
>
>
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/08/06/Lois-Lerner-Discusses-Political-Pressure-on-the-IRS-in-2010
>
>
>
>
> In case anyone missed this, here’s Lois Lerner in her own words from 2010
> explaining that “everyone” wanted the IRS to “do something.”
>
>
>
> This video according to the report was taken in the fall of 2010.
>
>
>
> Implications of this?  I thought the IRS and the White House have
> maintained there was no pressure on the IRS.
>
>
>
> -          Jason Torchinsky
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To
> ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that,
> unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this
> communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be
> used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or
> recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein. This
> message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from a law
> firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future
> distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or
> if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and
> delete/destroy the document. <-->
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>  <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130807/b8969701/attachment.html>