[EL] Just treat PACs and c4s like c3s(?)

Fri May 17 14:27:57 PDT 2013

It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it, Thomas?

As another Thomas once noted, "Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you
make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by
private as well as public reasons."  The entire notion of top-down,
crusading efforts of government actors to allot or deprive benefits to
associations of citizens based on those actors' whimsical criteria seems
absurd, even in this day and age.  Of course, we dress up this system of
noble inquisition in sophisticated ways and develop the very best systems
of Rube Goldberg machines to achieve regulatory perfection.  And here we
are today.

I suppose, as I've noted before on this listserv, that, from a human
perspective, we all retain our fear of deep, dark boogeymen "corrupting"
the American public and political process.  That might be the NRA, American
Crossroads, Big Labor, or the nefarious operations of Soros' agents.
 Should we agree to dispel these fears and embrace a free flow of speech
and association for all, we could give up on this silliness and halt all
this absurdity.  But so long as we cling to deeply held suspicions about
those "others," we retain the clawed machinery of the state to investigate,
suppress, and make "pure" the political process.

It is the free flow of competing ideas, heretical thoughts, and unorthodox
revelations that lead to the restoration of civic virtue and engagement,
not the top-down imposition of confusing rules, chaotic interpretations,
and abusive government practices.  As Judge Kaufman of the Second Circuit
reasoned, whenever "an official agency of government has been created to
scrutinize the content of political expression" "such bureaucracies feed
upon speech and almost ineluctably come to view unrestrained expression as
a potential 'evil' to be tamed, muzzled, or sterilized."  Witness, the
current IRS story, 40 plus years of FEC meddling, "subversive speech"
cases, and on and on and on in American history.

There is much work to be done.

Forward,

First Amendment Ben

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Thomas J. Cares <Tom at tomcares.com> wrote:
>
> ...(...if a small and obscure denomination of Christianity wants to give
away bibles door to door, contributions to that effort are tax deductible
and they're unlikely to ever have any issues with the IRS; ...not so if I
ever took on the effort of spearheading voter initiatives to eternally
prohibit the consumption of any form of tobacco by anyone born after the
year 2000.
>
> Why is it appropriate for the government to effectively assess that
'small group's' bible-spreading as being more virtuous than my hypothetical
efforts towards eventually eradicating lung cancer?
>
> (the government shouldn't have formulas and bureaucracies to effectively
judge the virtues of not-for-profit activity; treating all not-for-profit
activity alike clearly seems to be the simple solution here))
>
> -Thomas Cares
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Friday, May 17, 2013, Thomas J. Cares wrote:
>>
>> This has always seemed like an unequivocally-good reform to me.
>>
>> Just make all political spending (candidate contributions, PACs,
lobbying, everything) tax deductible.
>>
>> It's practically an infinitesimal portion of our economy, and by making
it taxable the government has to stick its nose where it doesn't belong.
This IRS scandal is obviously a great case in point. You also have stuff
like if a politician runs a genuine charity that also happens to get him
great public exposure (let's say the charity opens a free day care center,
and they run a tv ad where the politician/charity-head announces its
opening, while the election is in 2 weeks - should the charity not be
allowed to run it because it's contributions are tax deductible, but money
supporting the candidate wouldn't be? Should we have to trust the IRS to
have no political bias in deciding whether challenge the charity's c3
status?)
>>
>> And of course, civic activity should be encouraged and it's good public
policy to not tax it.
>>
>> Seems like a very simple solution to me.
>>
>> -Thomas Cares
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013, Rick Hasen wrote:
>>>
>>> To the contrary Steve.  I want to take the IRS out of the business of
being a campaign finance regulator, and have Congress set clear rules for
disclosure of contributions used to fund significant amounts of federal
election advertising (with an exemption for those who face realistic
threats of harassment).
>>>
>>> On 5/14/13 3:20 PM, Steve Klein wrote:
>>>
>>> Rick, like Nancy Pelosi, acknowledges that there's a problem with the
IRS harassing groups based on their ideology.
>>>
>>> The solution is to provide the IRS with the names of people who support
ideological groups.
>>>
>>> Forgive a sarcastic response, but, "Wait, what?"
>>>
>>> Whether under fear of government incompetence or malfeasance, there are
strong, principled reasons to oppose disclosure. This episode only
reinforces my belief that disclosure serves, at best, an "obfuscational
interest" in political discourse, letting the Willie Starks of the world
find dirt on speakers (and "there's always something") rather than engage
on important issues.
>>>
>>> --------
>>>
>>> “It’s About Disclosure, Stupid; The larger failing behind the terrible
IRS treatment of tea party groups.”
>>>
>>> Posted on May 14, 2013 2:41 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>
>>> I’ve written this commentary for Slate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Steve Klein
>>> Staff Attorney & Research Counsel*
>>> Wyoming Liberty Group
>>> 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
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rick Hasen
>>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>>> UC Irvine School of Law
>>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>>> 949.824.3072 - office
>>> 949.824.0495 - fax
>>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>>> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
>>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> 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/20130517/ccacbd09/attachment.html>