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

[Joe La Rue]

With regard of getting rid of charitable deductions, have you considered the tremendous amount of good that churches and other religious organizations do in communities? From things such as feeding the hungry and clothing the needy, after school programs, and drug and alcohol counseling, to such things as their promotion of strong families and good citizenship, religious organizations provide tremendous economic value. What helps them do that, of course, is the charitable deduction. Take that away and even more will fall on governments that are already stretched too thin.

On May 17, 2013, at 7:44 PM, "Mark Schmitt" <schmitt.mark at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is the proposal here that if Michael Bloomberg spends $85 million on one of his political campaigns, it will be entirely deductible against his income, as if it were a contribution to charity?
>  
> That seems more like a subsidy than like freedom. And subsidies require rules and limits. Why not go in the other direction -- get rid of the charitable deduction, and treat all spending, whether it's for politics, charity, or your yacht, the same way? Lower rates/broader base/less complexity.
>  
>  
>  
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Thomas J. Cares" <Tom at tomcares.com>
> To: "Election Law" <law-election at uci.edu>
> Sent: 5/17/2013 4:13:53 PM
> Subject: [EL] Just treat PACs and c4s like c3s(?)
>> 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
>>>> javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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
>>> javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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/20130517/5427ecd2/attachment.html>