[EL] About those Public Citizen numbers
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Wed Apr 2 06:31:23 PDT 2014
The problem is that Public Citizen's press release is grossly misleading.
As always in these controversies there are two basic sides -- more
regulation of campaign speech or less. The IRS proposed rules clears falls into
the category of more regulation and is widely perceived by the public and
commentators as doing so. This is what the public controversy is all about.
So when the press release says "67 percent of those that commented or
signed comments encouraged the IRS to stick to the path of this rulemaking
and move forward with changing rules regarding nonprofit political
activity," it is claiming that 67 percent support more regulation -- and it is
apparent that this interpretation is exactly what Public Citizen intended by
such language.
Craig defends now by saying that the press release was only surveying
whether rulemaking should go forward at all -- regardless of content. Well
I support rulemaking if it would result in less restrictions so I guess
they would count me on their side.
So obviously the question that Public Citizen surveyed is just not
meaningful -- people on both sides of the public controversy could support
rulemaking. But, in the context of this public controversy, it is the path of
the rulemaking that is pertinent and Public Citizen hijacks most of the
groups by claiming they support their side.
As a result, the survey is grossly misleading and intentionally so.
Jim Bopp
In a message dated 4/1/2014 3:52:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
BSmith at law.capital.edu writes:
Please Craig, we are not fools. We all understand quite well the purpose
of public citizens release.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 1, 2014, at 3:41 PM, "Craig Holman" <_holman at aol.com_
(mailto:holman at aol.com) > wrote:
Hello Brad and Luke:
I see you are attempting to challenge the methodology behind Public
Citizen's analysis of the comments to the IRS/Treasury rulemaking on the
definition of political intervention, in which Public Citizen found that 67% of the
organizational comments favor moving ahead with the rulemaking process.
The finding should not be so surprising. Few of the groups affected by the
current "facts and circumstances" test defend such a subjective standard
for evaluating tax exempt status. And the methodology is very
straightforward. The purpose of this analysis is to debunk those who argue that most
commenters do not want the rulemaking to go forward, an inaccuracy too often
repeated in the press.
Luke Wachob’s piece regarding our analysis conflates widespread desire to
change the rules governing nonprofits with support for the IRS’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, and ignores the full context of the comments we
analyzed. As we stated in our original release, our analysis provides an
accurate measure of those organizations who want different rules to govern
nonprofits at the conclusion of the current rulemaking process.
The analysis at issue was conducted using a simple test. Every comment
with the organization field filled out was reviewed. Once duplicates and
comments on behalf of organization members rather than the organization
itself were eliminated, the comment was reviewed to determine whether the
organization wanted the rules governing nonprofits to be changed as a result of
the rulemaking process. The context of the entire comment was taken into
account. Thus, when organizations supported revising the NPRM they were
counted as supporting changes to the rules, regardless of their use of the word
“withdraw.” See, for example, the _Alliance for Justice sign-on
comment_ (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=IRS-2013-0038-131919) (“We
request that Treasury and the IRS withdraw the proposed regulation and
work with the regulated community to develop a better approach.”).
Similarly, some organizations that suggested changes to the NPRM were
counted as against further rulemaking even when they proposed changes to the
NPRM if it was clear from context that further rulemaking was opposed. See,
for example, _Heritage Action for America’s_
(http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=IRS-2013-0038-102069) comment (“If, however, the IRS
proceeds further, then the IRS should adopt the changes to the Proposed
Regulation in the NPRM recommended below, for the reasons given”).
Our analysis never purported to determine whether or to what degree
organizations supported enacting the rules as proposed. In fact, the _press
release_
(http://www.citizen.org/documents/cw21c-BLP%20comment%20analysis%20FINAL.pdf) Wachob cites acknowledges that “nearly none” of the organizations
support adopting the NPRM with no changes. Indeed, the comments from
Public Citizen and the Bright Lines Project spend many pages critiquing the
NPRM, and themselves call for revised rules.
We are in the process now of providing a further breakdown of the types of
changes to the rules that different organizations are proposing in their
comments, but given that staggering number of comments, this will take a
little while. Suffice it to say that our initial analysis substantiates that
most organizations affected by the rules governing 501(c)(4) tax status want
those rules to change and overwhelmingly favor moving ahead with the
rulemaking process.
The Bright Lines Project and Public Citizen welcome robust discussion of
our results. Our data may be found _here_
(http://www.citizen.org/documents/2014-03-26%20Orgs%20wanting%20to%20continue.pdf) .
The Bright Lines Project has been working for years to create clear, fair
rules that would apply to all nonprofits. The IRS has an opportunity to
correct decades of uncertainty with new rules and we – like most other
commenters – support their efforts to do so, even though we want some
modifications with the rules as proposed so far.
Emily Peterson-Cassin
Bright Lines Project Coordinator
Congress Watch
Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
T-(202) 454-5182
C-(202) 905-7413
F-(202) 547-7392
_Holman at aol.com_ (mailto:Holman at aol.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Brad <_BSmith at law.capital.edu_ (mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu)
>
To: _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto:law-election at UCI.edu)
<_law-election at uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election at uci.edu) >
Sent: Tue, Apr 1, 2014 12:16 pm
Subject: [EL] About those Public Citizen numbers
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2014/04/01/cooking-the-numbers-public-citizen
s-recipe/
"Public Citizen claims that '67 percent of the organizational comments
favored going ahead with [the IRS campaign finance] rulemaking,'
***
"To recap: The Alliance for Justice and 64 other groups say 'withdraw the
proposed regulation,' and Public Citizen hears 'go ahead.' The Alliance
Defending Freedom and 26 other groups say 'they should be withdrawn,' and
Public Citizen hears 'go ahead.' The Funders’ Committee for Civic
Participation and 51 other groups say 'restart the process,' and Public Citizen hears
'go ahead.'... If this is support for the rulemaking process, I would hate
to see what opposition looks like."
[includes links to actual comments]
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
614.236.6317
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
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/20140402/20795ab3/attachment.html>
View list directory