|
|
May 18, 2013
|
|
|
|
 They All Do ItPosted on Oct 14, 2010By Ruth Marcus As the election drew closer, outside groups run by some of the party’s canniest political operatives pumped millions of dollars into key races. Newly formed and with innocuous-sounding names, they ran slashing attack ads. Party leaders on the other side cried foul, complaining of a “total meltdown of federal campaign finance regulation.” Sound familiar? This was 2004. The outside groups were organized by such Democratic strategists as Harold Ickes and Ellen Malcolm; they were funded by labor unions and wealthy donors writing seven-figure checks. In the end, nearly three years later, the groups agreed to pay fines totaling $1.3 million—to settle charges that they had illegally spent more than $150 million to influence the election. So forgive me if I take the current Democratic howls of outrage with a hefty helping of cynicism. Not that the Republican-linked spending isn’t outrageous. In fact, it’s way worse than the Democrats’ 2004 avalanche of outside money because so much is being conducted under a cloak of secrecy. Advertisement Democrats are not playing the outside group game this election—but it would be awkward to do so while blasting Republicans. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama discouraged the formation of outside groups—but his fundraising juggernaut meant he didn’t need them. The real villains of the current mess are a tax code that gives way too much leeway for secret and unlimited political cash and a regulatory regime that has proved itself incapable of stemming the flow. In 2004, Democratic groups disclosed their donors—not because they are purer of heart but because the law required it. The Democrats chose to set up the groups as what are known as 527s—political committees required to report receipts and expenditures to the Internal Revenue Service. The Republican-linked groups are operating under different sections of the tax code that don’t mandate such disclosure. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, is a trade association, known as a 501(c)(6). Crossroads GPS, the group backed by Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, is a nonprofit advocacy organization, known as a 501(c)(4). Are they stretching the limit of what the law allows? Especially in the case of the nonprofits, I’d argue yes. We’ll find out—eventually. The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, the reform groups that brought the 2004 complaints against the Democrats’ outside groups, have asked the IRS to investigate Crossroads GPS. Under federal tax law, 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6)s cannot “primarily engage” in activities that constitute “participation or intervention in political campaigns.” Under federal election law, political committees—groups whose “major purpose” is to influence elections, and that run ads that cannot be understood as anything but advocating the election or defeat of federal candidates—must comply with reporting requirements. The IRS has failed to effectively police the porous boundaries. Marcus Owens, who headed the IRS branch that oversaw nonprofit organizations, points out that the newly sprouted nonprofits won’t even have to file reports with the IRS until January 2012. “It’s a farce,” he told The New York Times. Meanwhile, the Federal Election Commission has proved itself institutionally incapable of responding. In case after case involving the political activities of nonprofits, the agency has deadlocked, with its three Republican commissioners blocking investigations. The obvious solution isn’t to rely on the kindness of political operatives. It’s to strengthen the law to require groups clearly engaged in the election-influencing business to say where their money is coming from—as the Disclose Act that Republicans now oppose would do. As one senior lawmaker said in 2000, when Congress was tightening the rules for 527s, “what we ought to do is broaden the disclosure to include at least labor unions and tax-exempt business associations and trial lawyers so that you include the major political players in America. Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?” That was Mitch McConnell, now Senate minority leader. He was right then, even if he disagrees with himself now. As I said, it’s all situational. Ruth Marcus’ e-mail address is marcusr(at symbol)washpost.com. © 2010, Washington Post Writers Group  TAGS:
|
How the IRS’ Nonprofit Division Got So Dysfunctional
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Fat Freddy, October 17, 2010 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment
I really wish that advertising was as effective as some here would like me to believe. If it was, I would take every dollar I make in profits from my business, and throw it all into advertising. According to the logic here, all I would need to do is outspend my competition, and I would be able to corner the market, or at least receive a disproportional share of it. The fact of the matter is, no matter how much I spend on ads, or how effective they are, I still have to get the jobs, and do the work in a satisfactory manner. All of the advertising in the World isn’t going to save my business if I don’t properly service my clients and customers.
Report thisBy Fat Freddy, October 17, 2010 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment
glider
You seem to be under the impression that money buys votes. Your problem is not with the people who spend the money, your problem is with the people whom you think are being manipulated by cheesy advertising.
You want to justify restricting the freedom of people, and groups, to be able to do whatever they want with their money. Would you like someone to tell you what you can or can’t do with your money? If not, then perhaps you should rethink your position.
However, no one has any specific right to hold elected office. We already place certain restrictions on that. You are attacking the problem from the wrong end. Instead of saying that certain groups and individuals do not have a right to spend their money however they wish, perhaps you should say that politicians do not have a right to hold office if they accept money in a certain way(s).
http://blog.mises.org/10646/whats-wrong-with-campaign-finance-regulations/
Report thisBy gerard, October 16, 2010 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment
“But this is a news/editorial site and not a site that provides an outlet for action (something that might be a worthwhile change to consider).” That’s slicing it rather thin, don’t you think? What organizations are working, how well, and doing what to improve our lives—that’s not news? People who are giving their lives to help change bad priorities are not news? I beg to differ!
And here again:
“Think tanks such as the Brookings Institute, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute have the staff and resources to come up with a viable reform without loopholes.” From my observation, these “think” tanks are interested in spending their “resources” to keep the status quo. They couldn’t care less about campaign reform that would prevent conservative politicians from having more money to spend than progressives because they themselves are conservative. This commenter must be dreaming.
Report thisBy carlos j. negron, October 16, 2010 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment
Now is the time for TRUE PUBLIC campaign finance reform.
Report thisAssign a realistic dollor value to every vote.
None may exceed the total dollar value of the position being sought.
No personal wealth or contributions may be used by the campaign.
Everyone seeking office must qualify via the petition route.
These are but a few thoughts on how to end the present state of affairs as regards campaign finance.
Think tanks such as the Brookings Institute, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute have the staff and resources to come up with a viable reform without loopholes.
This writer worked in a Governors administration and helped present members of Congress get to where they are. I mention this only because I would like all to know that I am not just talking out of my hat.
For those who may think this is costly, just consider what it is costing you now.
By carlos j. negron, October 16, 2010 at 3:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Now is the time for PUBLIC financing for all political elective offices.
Attach a realistic dollar value to every vote, no personal wealth or donations are allowed and all aspirants must qualify via the petition route.
This way you get the greed out of politics, bring media advertisement down, and for once have those elected indebted only to the electorate.
If you think this would be expensive (not so), just think what it’s costing you now.
Report thisBy glider, October 16, 2010 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment
Freddy,
The question is why do you favor freedom of money, rather that equal freedom for human beings? Why is one vote worth more than another vote?
In your utopia we can save ourselves the trouble of counting ballots and just count the money.
Report thisBy carlos j. negron, October 16, 2010 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The time has come for TRUE campaign finance reform.
Take it from this person who worked in a Gubernatorial Administration and helped present members of Congress get to where they are today.
If the goal is to have elected officials be indebted only to the electorate, get on the bandwagon for public financing of all political campaigns
Report thisUnder this scenario no personal wealth or contributions may be used when seeking elected office.All aspirants will need to qualify via the petition route, no more paying a financial fee to get on the ballot.
If anyone thinks this would be expensive, think of what it is costing you now
By Fat Freddy, October 16, 2010 at 5:50 am Link to this comment
Mike789
What is a corporation?
short version:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Corporations.html
long version:
http://books.google.com/books?id=P8mMyuYtwpIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hessen,+Robert.+In+Defense+of+the+Corporation&source=bl&ots=OFrWSq-54l&sig=E9xtd2sshSwz8yzNeo_Uwvw3SRA&hl=en&ei=jtaCTNvNMIS0lQfTl7CbDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f;=false
Report thisCorporations exist because of the privileges we give them? Wrong. It’s the Natural, or unalienable Right of freedom of association. Why do you hate freedom?
By Fat Freddy, October 16, 2010 at 5:40 am Link to this comment
How many Geico commercials will it take for everybody to purchase their car insurance from them? Progressive? State Farm?
How many McDonalds commercials will it take for everybody to buy all three meals from them, everyday? Burger King? Wendy’s?
Please.
Report thisBy glider, October 15, 2010 at 8:58 am Link to this comment
Gerald,
Report thisYes action is important but that goes hand in hand with keeping the public informed. IMO there are few more important topics as this effects everything. It is the core problem of our system so its tough to see that there are so many more important articles to air. But this is a news/editorial site and not a site that provides an outlet for action (something that might be a worthwhile change to consider).
By Mike789, October 15, 2010 at 4:35 am Link to this comment
The first step in any serious attempt at campaign finance reform is to address the nonsense that begins with erroneous interpretative precident of the 14th Ammendment. Personhood of corporations started out as clerical error and morphed into a political bribe. It has no foundation in straight headed thinking.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/
excerpt:
~“One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.”~
Report thisBy gerard, October 14, 2010 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment
Why just beat this issue to death with words and do nothing? Why not join with some of the people who are working toward Campaign Financing Reform and revoking the recent Supreme Court ruling? Google around and find out who they are. If people who crab like Ruth Marcus won’t at least do this, you won’t do anyting. Meantime, there are many more important articles to reprint here and stimulate thought and comment. The incessant presentation of events as if nobody is doing, or can do, anything toward constsructive change is boring.
Report thisBy glider, October 14, 2010 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment
That the issue is about “disclosure” and “transparency” of what should be a criminal activity is laughable. What kind of moral high ground is this stance? These are the opinions of politicians on the $take$. The Democrats are complete hypocrites on this issue. Hell, if it is already this corrupt and our creepy politicians do nothing to protect us than we might as well make it more horrendous in the hope that more obvious filthiness might alert the deaf and dumb to the problem. So what if the politicians “transparently” shit on our faces. It still shit on your face!
Report this