Tuesday
April
22
2014
11:58 pm
Weather
  Home
  Local News
  State / National / World
  Sports
  Opinion / Letters
  Business
  Arts / Entertainment
  Lifestyle
  Obituaries
  Calendar
  Submit Event
  Comics / Games
  Classifieds
  DJ Designers
  Archives
  Advertise With Us
  About Us
 
 
 
 

Check out our archive of Dining Guides - Yum!

OP-ED: IRS should keep its mitts off ‘political activity’
December 06, 2013, 05:00 AM Arizona Republic

It remains beyond dispute that there is much wrong with American campaign-finance law.

So much of the so-called dark money. So little disclosure. Political campaign finances have entered a “black ops” stage in which tens of millions of dollars are being spent each year by faceless organizations.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, we seem to know little about activist organizations and less about the people cutting the checks. The sum of such ignorance is a terrible weight on the integrity of American elections. How can we possibly know our candidates when we have little clue who is spending money to support them?

We can think of just one thing worse than the current state of campaign-finance affairs, and that is having the Internal Revenue Service propose “fixes” to the system.

The IRS has created new rules governing “political activity” as they apply to nonprofit organizations designated with a 501 (c)(4) status. Among several changes, this “initial guidance” from the tax-collecting agency would forbid certain communications by the non-profits during an election cycle, especially those that identify a certain candidate.

In addition, the IRS definitions governing “political activity” would include voter-registration drives, grants to political groups, events touting a certain candidate and distributing material on a candidate’s behalf.

There are problems with this. Let’s move from the less obvious ones to the painfully clear ones.

However well-intentioned, such rules tread dangerously close to inhibiting free speech, especially as that speech has been defined by the high court in Citizens United.

The greater problem, however, is the widespread concern that such rule changes in fact are not well-intentioned but constitute yet another IRS attempt to throttle conservative non-profit groups.

The investigations into the IRS’ years-long campaign of harassment of “tea party” nonprofits are still ongoing. The entire trail of responsibility for the agency’s malicious behavior has not yet been uncovered — although we know now that it extends far beyond the handful of “front line” personnel in Cincinnati who initially were served up for sacrifice.

Perhaps some time in the (likely distant) future, the IRS can claim some neutral ground from which to issue ground rules for nonprofit groups conducting political activity. That time is not now.

There are threats to the integrity of the American system of elections. And then there are threats.

“Dark money” in our elections is a real threat. Even in a world in which ruthless activists use their opponents’ donor lists to harass contributors simply for the “crime” of participating in politics, disclosure is vital.

Just as vital, however, is the expectation that the great machinery of the federal government should not be abused from within for partisan advantage.

Between 2010 and the 2012 presidential election, a handful of liberal-oriented nonprofit groups were briefly inconvenienced by the IRS before being approved and sent along on their happy way. Meanwhile, hundreds of conservative groups were held up for months and years. Some still await IRS approval.

Whatever one calls that, it is not the behavior of a politically neutral organization.

Neither is it the behavior of an agency that, at this point, should be making rules governing “political activity” of any kind.

 

 

Tags: political, groups, campaign, rules, there, governing,


Other stories from today:

Wheelmen
OP-ED: IRS should keep its mitts off ‘political activity’
Letter: Personal Kennedy remembrances
 

 
Print this Page Print this Page  |  Bookmark and Share
<< Back
 
Return To Archives
 
  


 
 
 
Daily Journal Quick Poll
 
What do you think of the Warriors' proposal to move to Mission Bay?

Smart, a better location
Still like the waterfront arena concept
Wish they would stay in Oakland
Anywhere in San Francisco is good
How about the Burlingame waterfront?

 

 
Tabbed Structure - Regular
 
 
 
 
 
Warriors formally announce plans for new arena in Mission Bay
The Golden State Warriors today formally announced their plans to build a new arena in San Francisco..
Biden: Russia must 'stop talking and start acting'
KIEV, Ukraine — U.S. Vice President Joe Biden warned Russia on Tuesday that "it's time to stop tal..
High court upholds Michigan affirmative action ban
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan's ban on using race as a factor in colle..
More >>  
 
 
  
 
  
 
©2014 San Mateo Daily Journal
San Mateo County fictitious business name statements