For Dave Camp and his ideological clones, rich people deserve to have their political speech subsidized by the government in order to protect their First Amendment free speech rights, while keeping their identities secret -- a perfectly egalitarian position, since anyone, no matter how poor, is free to make the same donations and get the same tax benefits and secrecy. That's a patently dishonest argument the powerful have long made and too few have challenged.
In the 2012 election cycle, outside groups who reported to the Federal Election Commission spent more than $1 billion to influence the vote. About a quarter of that was 501(c)(4) spending. This sector of non-profit political spending amounted to $1 million in 2006. The total was up to $92 million in 2010 and went over $250 million in 2012 -- all subsidized by a federal government that allows donors to hide their identities.
The original law covering 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations [see above] is really clear: to be tax-exempt, you cannot do any politics. No one in authority anywhere seems to want to enforce this law as it stands. Democrats propose ineffective new regulations to replace the ineffective old regulations, even though none of these regulations are based in the law. Republicans argue for a new law which will block any enforcement of the currently unenforceable regulations in order to have their IRS witch hunt go on distracting the credulous.
In July 2011 -- almost two years before the "scandal" was manufactured -- three organizations (Public Citizen, Democracy 21, and the Campaign Legal Center) and a congressman (Democrat Chris van Hollen) filed a petition with the IRS requesting that the IRS revise its 501(c)(4) regulations to conform to the law. The IRS did not start work on new regulations and did not respond substantively in any other way. In the summer of 2013, these same plaintiffs filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking the court to order the IRS to follow the law. In the words of the complaint:
"Defendant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has for many years violated the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) by allowing tax-exempt social welfare organizations to expend substantial sums on electoral activity. The IRC [code] provides that tax-exempt social welfare organizations must be "exclusively' engages in "promotion of social welfare.' IRC sec. 501(c)(4). The IRS' implementing regulation recognizes that electoral activity does not fall within the scope of activity promoting social welfare. Treasury Regulation (TR) sec. 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(ii). But the IRS's regulation also purports to provide that an organization operates "exclusively' to promote social welfare as long as it is operated "primarily' for social welfare purposes. Id. Sec. 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i). By redefining "exclusively' as "primarily' in violation of the clear terms of its governing statute, the IRS permits tax-exempt social welfare organizations to engage in substantial electoral activities in contravention of the law and court orders interpreting it." [emphasis added]
In September 2013, District Judge John D, Bates granted a motion to consolidate this case with another filed on the same issue. He also denied an IRS motion to dismiss the complaints. Since there has been no further development on the case.
Altogether these elements comprise the dominant paradigm for American governance in the early 21st century: Republicans keep on lying. Democrats keep on shucking and jiving. Bureaucrats run for cover (except the partisan ones). The court delays. Most of the media follow the food fight rather than the statute or the facts. And pretty much everyone everywhere ducks the essential, underlying question: Is there ANY rational argument to be made for taxpayers subsidizing any random political activity by anyone anywhere?
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
