[EL] more IRS, etc.

Mon May 13 20:11:59 PDT 2013

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323716304578481112854394652.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>   <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50281> “IRS officials in Washington were
> involved in targeting of conservative groups”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50281>
> Posted on May 13, 2013 5:35 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50281> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WaPo<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-denounces-reported-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups/2013/05/13/a0185644-bbdf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html>:
> “Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other
> offices were involved in the targeting of conservative groups seeking
> tax-exempt status, making clear the effort reached well beyond the branch
> in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by
> The Washington Post.”
>
> Meanwhile, since this scandal broke, I can’t get this TV theme song<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2drv0joKUcA>out of my head.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D50281&title=%E2%80%9CIRS%20officials%20in%20Washington%20were%20involved%20in%20targeting%20of%20conservative%20groups%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>   “Senate Democrats demanded stricter IRS standards for tax-exempt groups”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50278>
> Posted on May 13, 2013 5:03 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50278> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WaPo reports.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/05/13/senate-democrats-demanded-stricter-irs-standards-for-tax-exempt-groups/>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D50278&title=%E2%80%9CSenate%20Democrats%20demanded%20stricter%20IRS%20standards%20for%20tax-exempt%20groups%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>   “Scandal Could Change How IRS Regulates Political Groups”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50275>
> Posted on May 13, 2013 4:25 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50275> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NLJ reports<http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1368353630017&Scandal_Could_Change_How_IRS_Regulates_Political_Groups&slreturn=20130413192431>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D50275&title=%E2%80%9CScandal%20Could%20Change%20How%20IRS%20Regulates%20Political%20Groups%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>   “There Is No Good Fix for the IRS Tea Party Problem”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50272>
> Posted on May 13, 2013 3:45 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50272> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Josh Barro<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-13/there-is-no-good-fix-for-the-irs-tea-party-problem.html>for Bloomberg View.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D50272&title=%E2%80%9CThere%20Is%20No%20Good%20Fix%20for%20the%20IRS%20Tea%20Party%20Problem%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>   “IRS Scandal Could Blunt Potency Of Campaign Finance Reform”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50270>
> Posted on May 13, 2013 3:45 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50270> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> BuzzFeed reports<http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/irs-scandal-could-blunt-potency-of-campaign-finance-reform>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D50270&title=%E2%80%9CIRS%20Scandal%20Could%20Blunt%20Potency%20Of%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>   “The Dignity of the South” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50268>
> Posted on May 13, 2013 3:44 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50268> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Joey Fishkin has posted this draft<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2258789>on SSRN (Yale L.J. Online).  Here is the abstract:
>
> The plaintiffs in Shelby County v. Holder argue that section 5 of the
> Voting Rights Act should be struck down because it offends the “equal
> dignity” of the covered states — an argument the Court appeared to credit
> in its last brush with section 5 in NAMUDNO. This Essay, written in advance
> of the decision in Shelby County, critically examines this equal dignity of
> the states argument and situates it in a larger context. Americans have
> been fighting for 150 years, since the Civil War and Reconstruction, about
> the structural implications of the events of 1861–70 for the sovereignty,
> dignity, and equality of the states — and of the Southern states in
> particular. The equal dignity of the states argument thus stakes a claim on
> the meaning of the Civil War and Reconstruction in American historical
> memory, a claim whose implications are problematic and profound,
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D50268&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Dignity%20of%20the%20South%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
>   “For Tax-Exempt Groups, How Much Politics Is Too Much?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50265>
> Posted on May 13, 2013 3:30 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50265> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Peter Overby reports<http://www.npr.org/2013/05/13/183700362/irs-under-fire-for-targeting-conservative-groups>for NPR.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D50265&title=%E2%80%9CFor%20Tax-Exempt%20Groups%2C%20How%20Much%20Politics%20Is%20Too%20Much%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>   Nate Silver: IRS Story Could Have Political Legs in 2014<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50262>
> Posted on May 13, 2013 3:16 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50262> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I agree with this.<http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/i-r-s-targeting-of-conservative-groups-could-resonate-in-2014/?smid=tw-fivethirtyeight&seid=auto>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D50262&title=Nate%20Silver%3A%20IRS%20Story%20Could%20Have%20Political%20Legs%20in%202014&description=>
>   Posted in tax law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
> | Comments Off
>   “IRS: Top official first told of targeting in 2012″<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50259>
> Posted on May 13, 2013 3:05 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50259> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/senator-obama-should-condemn-irs-targeting>:
> “The Internal Revenue Service says acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller
> was first informed in May 2012 that tea party groups were inappropriately
> targeted for scrutiny. A month later he wrote a member of Congress to
> explain the process of reviewing applications for tax-exempt status without
> mentioning the controversy.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D50259&title=%E2%80%9CIRS%3A%20Top%20official%20first%20told%20of%20targeting%20in%202012%E2%80%B3&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>   “Levin-McCain statement on IRS investigation”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50256>
> Posted on May 13, 2013 3:03 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50256> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> “The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has been for several months
> examining on a bipartisan basis whether the IRS has adequately enforced
> rules regarding the extent to which tax exempt nonprofit 501(c)4  groups
> engage in partisan politics. We had tentatively planned a hearing on that
> issue for June. After Friday’s announcement that the IRS, to the extent it
> has been enforcing the law, may have done so in ways that singled out some
> groups for special scrutiny, we have determined that the subcommittee
> should investigate that additional issue as well. As a result, we have
> decided to delay our hearing in order to examine this issue carefully.  We
> will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to ensure the integrity of our
> political process and of enforcement efforts.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D50256&title=%E2%80%9CLevin-McCain%20statement%20on%20IRS%20investigation%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>   “Jungle Primary Angst for California Democratic Consultants | Shop Talk”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50252>
> Posted on May 13, 2013 1:50 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50252> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Verrrrrry interesting<http://www.rollcall.com/news/jungle_primary_angst_for_california_democratic_consultants_shop_talk-224766-1.html>
> :
>
> The fallout in the consulting world from two obscure local races continues
> to reverberate in the Golden State political world. At issue is the
> involvement of Democratic consultants in two 2012 Democrat-vs.-Democrat
> California Assembly general-election campaigns.
>
> Two union-backed Democratic incumbents lost re-election to Democratic
> challengers who were supported by business groups that sent out anti-union
> mail. Irate union groups and high-level California Democrats began to look
> into who was behind the mailers.
>
> The Sacramento Bee reports that Steve Glazer, a 2010 campaign aide to
> Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, was involved in the anti-incumbent efforts as
> a consultant to the state Chamber of Commerce.
>
> In March, CQ Roll Call first reported that this digging resulted in the
> breakup of the Mack|Crounse Group, a nationally prominent Democratic direct
> mail firm.
>
> In an email to the Bee, Glazer defended his participation in the effort,
> further exhibiting the new world order of California politics.
>
> “The party and labor used to hand pick candidates,” Dan Morain of The Bee
> writes. “The top-two primary system alters that equation.”
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D50252&title=%E2%80%9CJungle%20Primary%20Angst%20for%20California%20Democratic%20Consultants%20%7C%20Shop%20Talk%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,
> primaries <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32> | Comments Off
>   ABC News Posts Some of the Leaked TIGTA Report on IRS Tea Party Mess<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50250>
> Posted on May 13, 2013 1:32 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50250> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here<http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Appendix%20VI%20and%20Appendix%20VII.PDF>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D50250&title=ABC%20News%20Posts%20Some%20of%20the%20Leaked%20TIGTA%20Report%20on%20IRS%20Tea%20Party%20Mess&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>   Democracy 21 Statement Calls IRS “Dead Wrong” to Target Conservative
> Groups, But…. <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50247>
> Posted on May 13, 2013 1:30 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50247> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> notice the almost exclusive focus on the other wrongs Democracy 21 has
> called out in the past, and no endorsement of hearings on the targeting of
> conservative groups:  [*NOTE: See update at end of post.]*
>
> *Statement of Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer on IRS Improperly
> Targeting Conservative Groups and Groups Improperly Claiming 501(c)(4) Tax
> Status*
>
> The IRS was dead wrong to target conservative groups claiming tax-exempt
> status as section 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations based on their
> names and identified interests. This never should have happened and steps
> should be taken to ensure it does not happen again.
>
> At the same time, however, it is clear that a number of groups have
> improperly claimed tax-exempt status as section 501(c)(4) “social welfare”
> organizations in order to hide the donors who financed their campaign
> activities in the 2010 and 2012 federal elections.
>
> Democracy 21, joined by the Campaign Legal Center, sent a series of
> letters to the IRS, starting in October  2010 asking for investigations and
> appropriate action against certain groups that clearly appeared to be
> improperly claiming tax-exempt status as 501(c)(4) groups.
>
> The groups included Crossroads GPS, the pro-Republican group created by
> Karl Rove, Priorities USA, the pro-Obama group created by former Obama
> White House officials, American Action Network, a pro-Republican group, and
> Americans Elect, an independent group seeking to run an independent for
> President in 2012.
>
> In each of these cases, we provided information that documented the groups
> were not ‘social welfare” organizations and not entitled to 501(c)(4) tax
> status.
>
> It is these groups and others like them that should have been the focus of
> the IRS’s attention.
>
> To date, however, the IRS has taken no action against these groups who are
> improperly claiming tax status as section 501(c)(4) “social welfare”
> organizations.
>
> We believe the information and supporting materials we sent to the IRS
> documented an overwhelming case that both Crossroads GPS and Priorities USA
> are not “social welfare” organizations within the meaning of the Internal
> Revenue Code and are therefore not eligible for section 501(c)(4) tax
> status.
>
> Similarly, we believe the cases are open and shut that the American Action
> Network and Americans Elect are not entitled to section 501(c)(4) tax
> status.
>
> For example, as we informed the IRS, an article from the Center for
> Public Integrity’s *iWatch News *(October 31, 2011)<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/10/31/7205/fine-line-between-politics-and-issues-spending-secretive-501c4-groups> reported
> that American Action Network spent $30 million in 2010.
>
> According to the article and federal campaign finance reports, $26 million
> of the $30 million spent by American Action Network in 2010 was spent for
> “independent expenditures” and “electioneering communications,” as defined
> by federal campaign finance laws. The article stated:
>
> The conservative American Action Network, a leading independent player in
> last year’s election, poured $26 million – out of some $30 million in
> spending – from secret donors into political ads and activities to help
> Republican candidates. . . .
>
> As required by law, the network reported the $26 million it spent on
> political activities to the Federal Election Commission before Election Day.
>
> Our letter to the IRS noted that this means that *87 percent *of American
> Action Network’s expenditures in 2010 were made for campaign-related
> activities reported to the FEC under the campaign finance laws. The article
> further stated:
>
> “If over 80 percent of a group’s expenditures are for political purposes
> that require reporting to the FEC, then that organization will not qualify
> for tax exempt status under section 501(c)(4),” Marc Owens, who was
> director of the IRS exempt organizations division for a decade, told *iWatch
> News. *
>
> Our IRS letter stated that no one understands the tax laws to say that an
> organization is eligible for section 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status if *87
> percent *of its expenditures are made for campaign-related activities
> reported under the nation’s campaign finance laws.
>
> In the case of Americans Elect, we informed the IRS that this group was
> registering as a political party around the country in order to provide the
> opportunity for an independent candidate to run for President. At the same
> time, the group was claiming to be a 501(c)(4) “social welfare”
> organization so they could keep their donors secret. It is an oxymoron for
> an organization to be registered as a political party and also to claim to
> be a 501(c)(4) “social welfare organization.
>
> There is absolutely no basis on which a registered political party can
> qualify as a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization.
>
> These four cases and others like them must not be ignored or swept under
> the rug because of the wrongful actions of the IRS in the case of the
> conservative groups who were targeted.
>
> The congressional committees that have announced investigations of the IRS
> treatment of conservative groups must also investigate the failure of the
> IRS to address the blatant abuses by groups that have improperly claimed
> section 501(c)(4) tax-status.
>
> *UPDATE:  *After I posted this, Fred Wertheimer sends along the following
> additional thoughts:
>
> The last paragraph of my statement is an endorsement of both the hearings
> on the IRS wrongdoing on the tea party groups, hearings that have already
> been announced, and a call for hearings on the failure of the IRS to
> enforce the laws against groups that have been improperly claiming
> 501(c)(4) status as “social welfare” organizations
>
> I fully support hearings on both.
>
> The main focus of my statement today is on the blatant abuses of the tax
> laws by certain groups improperly claiming 501(c)(4) tax status and the
> failure of the IRS to do anything about it, because this problem is being
> all but ignored in the current discussion. This is also a serious IRS
> problem that is relevant to the current discussion and deserves public
> attention.
>
> If the IRS targeting issue becomes a basis for ignoring and walking away
> from the blatant abuses of the tax laws that have gone on for the past two
> elections, as some no doubt would like to see happen, then citizens can
> expect to see groups improperly claiming 501(c)(4) tax status continue to
> spend hundreds of millions of dollars in secret contributions in future
> elections to influence their votes.
>
>
>
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D50247&title=Democracy%2021%20Statement%20Calls%20IRS%20%E2%80%9CDead%20Wrong%E2%80%9D%20to%20Target%20Conservative%20Groups%2C%20But%E2%80%A6.&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>   “What Does the IRS Scandal Have to Do with SuperPAC’s?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50244>
> Posted on May 13, 2013 1:08 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50244> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I spoke with Warren Olney<http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp130513is_the_pentagon_losi>on “To the Point” about the IRS Mess (listen at 1:42 mark).
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D50244&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20Does%20the%20IRS%20Scandal%20Have%20to%20Do%20with%20SuperPAC%E2%80%99s%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>   “Pelosi Injects Campaign Finance Debate Into IRS Scandal”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50241>
> Posted on May 13, 2013 12:29 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50241> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Roll Call reports.<http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/pelosi-injects-campaign-finance-debate-into-irs-scandal/>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D50241&title=%E2%80%9CPelosi%20Injects%20Campaign%20Finance%20Debate%20Into%20IRS%20Scandal%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>
>  --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Steve Hoersting
CENTER for COMPETITIVE POLITICS
124 S. West Street
Suite 201
Alexandria, Va. 22314
(703) 894-6800
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130513/be0cf6c6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130513/be0cf6c6/attachment.png>