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

Mark Schmitt schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Fri May 17 21:35:26 PDT 2013 

I have! I've considered it a lot. I'm actually not advocating getting 
rid of the charitable deduction, although I would support limiting it at 
the high end, along the lines of an early Obama proposal. I am saying 
that if you want to achieve the goal of seamless, minimal-regulation 
charitable/political activity that Thomas Cares advocates, eliminating 
all deductibility would be the only way to do it.

Thomas wrote, "by making it taxable the government has to stick its nose 
where it doesn't belong," but the exact opposite is true. It's when you 
make some category of spending tax-exempt that the government/IRS has to 
get involved. The IRS doesn't get involved when you buy a television for 
your den, because it doesn't care what kind of TV you buy, or if you buy 
it at all -- the money you spend on that television is just regular 
taxable income. Even if we make all charitable and all political 
spending deductible, there have to be some boundaries: What's 
self-dealing, for example? No matter where the line is, there will be 
regulation.

And Thomas's idea would dramatically exacerbate the inequality in the 
ability to give. A donor in the top tax bracket, able to give $1 million 
to a campaign, would get a tax break worth almost $400,000, whereas a 
small donor would get no benefit at all. (Any donor who didn't itemize 
would get nothing.)

The range of ideas proposed in this NY Times debate, with contributions 
from Ellen Aprill and others, is interesting and more responsible, and 
most of them have some merit, at least as thought experiments:
  
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/15/does-the-irs-scandal-prove-that-501c4s-should-be-eliminated

------ Original Message ------
From: "Joe La Rue" <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
To: "Mark Schmitt" <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>
Cc: "Election Law" <law-election at uci.edu>
Sent: 5/18/2013 12:04:05 AM
Subject: Re: [EL] Just treat PACs and c4s like c3s(?)
>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:
>
>>#26ce2d085844412b9bc33865b6061896 BLOCKQUOTE.cite {PADDING-LEFT: 10px; 
>>MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; 
>>MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px} #26ce2d085844412b9bc33865b6061896 .plain PRE, 
>>.plain TT {FONT-SIZE: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: monospace; FONT-WEIGHT: 
>>normal; FONT-STYLE: normal} #26ce2d085844412b9bc33865b6061896, 
>>26ce2d085844412b9bc33865b6061896 .plain PRE, .plain TT {FONT-SIZE: 
>>12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma}
>>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 onMay 14, 2013 2:41 pmbyRick 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.htmlhttp://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/20130518/9bcc6182/attachment.html>

View list directory