[EL] Curious double election law issues in investigation of IRS targeting

[John Tanner]

I know and like Ms. Bosserman, aka Bobbie, and there's no at all reason to
doubt her ability or integrity.   I think she actually works or used to
work in an office that advises attorneys about the rules of various state
bars so attorneys can stay out of trouble.   I have no problem at all with
her assignment.

But it's an odd choice.  The usual candidates for such a task are AUSAs and
Main Justice criminal prosecutors, all of who are (or at least used to be)
prohibited from making campaign contributions because of the appearance
issue.  The appearance issue, as to which I'm pretty sure there's an actual
Reg., allows consideration of that sort of thing in making assignments.  It
seems like one of the OPR people looking into the New Black Panther
business was pulled because of contributions, but I may be wrong.

(While an attorney in the Voting Section I personally avoided making any
campaign contributions, but I'd have to admit that was largely because I
knew a whole lot of candidates and liked to have an easy reason to say
"No.")


On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com> wrote:

>  If it is in fact against the law or department regulations to deny a
> civil service employee a position or responsibility based on their
> political contributions (I do not know that to be the case in fact, but am
> reacting to the post) that would seem a sensible protection of political
> speech in a governmental setting, and would likely be designed to avoid
> reprisals for political views discovered through mandated disclosure.
>
>
>
> Trevor Potter
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Scarberry,
> Mark
> *Sent:* Friday, January 10, 2014 2:57 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] Curious double election law issues in investigation of
> IRS targeting
>
>
>
> Legally mandated campaign contribution disclosures reveal that the DOJ
> Civil Rights Division attorney tasked with investigating the IRS targeting
> of certain 501(c)(4) applicants made multiple contributions to the Obama
> campaigns and the DNC. Thus, there are allegations of bias and conflict of
> interest. See, for example,
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/01/09/obama-political-donor-leading-justice-departments-irs-investigation/,
> and the letter from Representatives Issa and Jordan to Attorney General
> Holder,
> http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2014-01-08-DEI-Jordan-to-Holder-DOJ-IRS-tax-exempt-applicants.pdf.
> Yet we are told (in the same Wash. Post article) that the Justice
> Department could not take such contributions into account in deciding
> whether to assign that task to her:
>
>
>
> “It is contrary to department policy and a prohibited personnel practice
> under federal law to consider the political affiliation of career employees
> or other non-merit factors in making personnel decisions,” DOJ spokeswoman
> Dena Iverson said in a statement. “Additionally, removing a career employee
> from an investigation or case due to political affiliation, as Chairmen
> Issa and Jordan have requested, could also violate the equal opportunity
> policy and the law.”
>
>
>
> Is the government actually prohibited from reviewing campaign contribution
> disclosures in this way, or taking into account the appearance of bias or
> conflict of interest potentially revealed by such disclosures, when the
> investigation is politically charged? What might this tell us about the
> propriety (pro or con) of requiring disclosure of contributions by
> government officials or others?
>
>
>
> Just to make clear, I don’t know anything about the attorney (Barbara
> Bosserman), other than what I’ve read in the press, and am not accusing her
> of bias in this matter.
>
>
>
> I thought it was curious that an election law matter – the targeting of
> groups allegedly because of their expected participation in electoral
> politics – would trigger another election law issue, the proper use of
> mandated campaign contribution disclosures.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
>
> Professor of Law
>
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>
>
>
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
> that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in
> this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written
> to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or
> recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
>
>  This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from a
> law firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future
> distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or
> if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and
> delete/destroy the document.
>
> --
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140110/9071cb44/attachment.html>