[EL] Comments on IRS nonprofit politicking rulemaking

[David Keating]

The Center for Competitive Politics did an analysis of the Bright Lines Project and it is not clear to us that it is superior to the "facts and circumstances" test used by the IRS.

Our analysis is here:
*  CCP: "Bright Lines Project" Fails to Live Up to Its Name<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Bright-Lines.pdf>, By Eric Wang

Bob Bauer also wrote about the project:
*  Controversial Speech and the Education of Voters<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2013/06/controversial-speech/>, By Bob Bauer
*  The Bright Lines Project: Its Defense and a Brief Reply<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2013/06/bright-lines-project-defense/>, By Bob Bauer
*  The IRS and the Question of Intent<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2013/06/irs-intent/>, By Bob Bauer

David
_________________________________________________
David Keating | President | Center for Competitive Politics
124 S. West Street, Suite 201 | Alexandria, VA 22314
703-894-6799 (direct) | 703-894-6800 | 703-894-6811 Fax
www.campaignfreedom.org

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Ottinger
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 6:18 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: [EL] Comments on IRS nonprofit politicking rulemaking

I think it's important that Mr. Trotter at CCP and Mr. Bopp see widespread agreement around the need for the current, vague "facts and circumstances" standard for nonprofit political intervention to be changed.  Indeed, addressing the vagueness of the current system is the primary stated purpose of this effort, following up on recommendations from Treasury Inspector General Ronald George.

That more than 140,000 comments were submitted, that alone does not tell you whether the commenters wanted to change the current system or not (and if so, how).  Indeed, the large number of comments easily could have been urging that the status quo be maintained and that the IRS not do anything.  Since most commenters agree that the IRS' first attempt requires significant revisions, it is a little difficult to discern the view of commenters toward a second attempt (whether that second attempt will be part of the same rulemaking or through a separate one or at least a separate NPRM).  I understand the analysis by the Bright Lines Project as saying that about 70% would like to see a second attempt and about 30% as saying they don't want the IRS to do anything further.

The Bright Lines Project is headed by leading, thoughtful exempt-organization practitioners, who crafted bright line recommendations because of the vagueness problems of the current system.  The Bright Lines Project's recommendations actually would be less restrictive of nonpartisan political engagement than the current system that chills First Amendment rights.  My sense is that the Bright Lines Project has sought the input and participation of folks like Mr. Smith and Mr. Bopp in this endeavor, but the relevant people can best answer that.

Based on public statements and writings, including the comments, there seems to be important areas of agreement to change and improve upon the current system.

Larry Ottinger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140406/31bb491a/attachment.html>