[EL] Rudimentary 501(c)(4) question

[Marty Lederman]

Oh, I'm sure it goes back to before 1960; I just didn't trace it back that
far.

I would think that actually enforcing an "exclusively" standard would *
eliminate* vagueness and administrative inconsistency, not exacerbate it.
And it wouldn't be "overbroad" as a statutory matter -- that's what the
statute says! -- nor would it raise a serious First Amendment problem,
unless I'm missing something.



On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Steve Klein <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>wrote:

> I looked for this the other day through Westlaw searches and could not
> come up with the case that's addressed point, but admittedly did not have
> much time to devote to the question. CREW has an ongoing lawsuit<http://www.citizensforethics.org/lawsuits/entry/crew-v.-internal-revenue-service> over
> the issue, but it may come up short on standing grounds and not get to the
> question.
>
> I believe, though the IRS's reg predates the 1970s and the IRC is not
> FECA, that there would be serious vagueness, and certainly overbreadth
> problems with implementing "exclusively." Like the issue advocacy / express
> advocacy distinction in campaign finance law, there's far too much social
> welfare (e.g., promoting the study of the U.S. Constitution) that
> inevitably has political implications.
>
> As for the administrative law issues that are immediately apparent, I
> leave that to the admin law experts.
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.marty at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> I probably should know this -- so apologies in advance if there's a
>> well-known answer -- but I've never really thought about it, and it's an
>> obvious question in light of recent events:
>>
>> When did the IRS decide that “[a]n organization is operated *exclusively*for the
>> promotion of social welfare [the statutory standard] if it is *primarily*
>> engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of
>> the people of the community”?  26 CFR 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i)
>>
>> And why?  Since Congress chose the adverb "exclusively," how and whey did
>> the agency and everyone else settle on "primarily"?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
> *
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130520/9e0ea5c0/attachment.html>