In one sense, this isn’t as outrageous as it first sounds. After all, political groups use IRS regulations to receive exemptions on donations, allowing donors to deduct those donations and to get more money than they otherwise would. On the other hand, though, when the US requires IRS approval to conduct political speech, this is the kind of power that one hands government:
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus sent a serious shot across the bows of the growing ranks of groups, most of them on the right, playing aggressively in elections under non-profit 501(c)4 and (c)6 status, with a letter asking that the IRS commissioner examine them for violations of tax law.
A central, and endlessly complicated, legal question is whether an organization’s “primary purpose” is politics, and many find ways to spend 51% of their money, for instance, on policy campaigns. Different lawyers have offered different advice to groups on where, exactly, the line is — but many, like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Job Security, are operating under different versions of the non-profit status to both advertise in elections and keep their donors secret.
The IRS should examine whether the groups’ “political activities reach a primary purpose level” and “whether they are acting as conduits for major donors advancing their own private interests regarding legislation or political campaigns, or are providing major donors with excess benefits.”
The main practical problem is regulatory ambiguity. No one really knows where the lines are drawn, and so it becomes impossible to have any certainty on compliance. That may keep lawyers employed, but the lack of certainty means that the overall effect is to curtail speech and assembly for the purpose of political action.
In fact, that’s the entire purpose of creating these regulations, and everyone knows it. It’s an explicit feature of such regulation. Politicians talk about keeping the rich from running and buying elections, whether it’s the unions, the corporations, or the “special interests” boogeymen used by elected officials in passing these restrictions. What they really do is protect incumbents by making outside challenges more difficult through speech restrictions and legal intimidation. Even in this midterm cycle, where voter anger and engagement has almost reached a decades-long zenith, most people project a mere 60-80 seats in the House to change hands at best — which is less than 20%. More than 80% of incumbents will return to their jobs even with voters rating Congress lower than the media.
Certainly the IRS should enforce the law as it exists (as should the entire government in areas like immigration, for example). However, Baucus’ timing in demanding investigations speaks volumes about his motives. It’s yet another reason that campaign finance reform should get shelved in place of systems that require and deliver full disclosure for political speech, and voters can provide the market for both the speech and the candidates.
This is the new line touted mostly by the conservative side– all these campaign donations are insignificant, making the absurd argument that we spend more each year on irrelevant and unrelated things like yogurt or halloween candy, that the cash spent on campaigns is of negligible effect on the election outcomes, and, finally, that the threat of foreign influence on our elections through these funding channels is also negligible. Nothing to see here, move along.
David Brooks spouted this exact same nonsense in his op-ed column in the NY Times earlier this week, replete with a host of imaginary numbers to cloud just how much is being spent on both sides then claiming that, in the end, all the cash shoveled into this mid-term election has no real influence on the outcome, going so far as to claim that these multimillion dollar donations are more for the ‘feel-good’ effect they offer the donors than for the spoils that would most assuredly come back to them once their chosen candidates are declared victorious.
I think it’s obscene the amount of money spent by both sides of the aisle during these elections and am troubled by the anonymous nature of so many of these donations, but for the life of me I can’t figure out how best to correct it without running afoul of the Bill of Rights. Free speech is free speech even if you’re not always happy with the outcome. If a corporation wants to support a candidate, I’m guessing it should be allowed to do so just as labor unions and other large organizations can.
I do think, however, that these corporate institutions should not be able to hide behind anonymity when making these donations. All donations by corporations should have the company’s tax identification number on the donation check. Since the Citizens United ruling judged these corporations as having the same rights as individuals, perhaps their donations should be capped at the same totals as individuals. If Proctor & Gamble wants to give to candidate X, allow them to donate at the same limits as Mr. Proctor N. Gamble.
Another, more drastic solution would be to rule that the First Amendment doesn’t apply and set a federally-funded limit for all candidates. Allow every candidate an equivalent amount of campaign funds and airtime for commercials, eliminate third-party advertising, and leave it at that. Otherwise, it will soon reach the point where the total spent during an election cycle meets or exceeds the GDP of third world countries.
Tree crushes miner to death at Mahdia - Stabroek <b>News</b> - Guyana
The life of a 49-year old miner was yesterday afternoon snuffed out after a tree fell on him while he was working at a mining area at Mahdia in Region 8.
Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 10/27 - Arrowhead Pride
Good morning Chiefs fans! There's some interesting Kansas City Chiefs news today. A great piece from Cory Greenwood's hometown newspaper, and more on Chambers' playing time start us off. Enjoy.
ABC <b>News</b> airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w <b>...</b>
ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.
bench craft company complaints
bench craft company complaints
Tree crushes miner to death at Mahdia - Stabroek <b>News</b> - Guyana
The life of a 49-year old miner was yesterday afternoon snuffed out after a tree fell on him while he was working at a mining area at Mahdia in Region 8.
Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 10/27 - Arrowhead Pride
Good morning Chiefs fans! There's some interesting Kansas City Chiefs news today. A great piece from Cory Greenwood's hometown newspaper, and more on Chambers' playing time start us off. Enjoy.
ABC <b>News</b> airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w <b>...</b>
ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.
bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints
In one sense, this isn’t as outrageous as it first sounds. After all, political groups use IRS regulations to receive exemptions on donations, allowing donors to deduct those donations and to get more money than they otherwise would. On the other hand, though, when the US requires IRS approval to conduct political speech, this is the kind of power that one hands government:
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus sent a serious shot across the bows of the growing ranks of groups, most of them on the right, playing aggressively in elections under non-profit 501(c)4 and (c)6 status, with a letter asking that the IRS commissioner examine them for violations of tax law.
A central, and endlessly complicated, legal question is whether an organization’s “primary purpose” is politics, and many find ways to spend 51% of their money, for instance, on policy campaigns. Different lawyers have offered different advice to groups on where, exactly, the line is — but many, like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Job Security, are operating under different versions of the non-profit status to both advertise in elections and keep their donors secret.
The IRS should examine whether the groups’ “political activities reach a primary purpose level” and “whether they are acting as conduits for major donors advancing their own private interests regarding legislation or political campaigns, or are providing major donors with excess benefits.”
The main practical problem is regulatory ambiguity. No one really knows where the lines are drawn, and so it becomes impossible to have any certainty on compliance. That may keep lawyers employed, but the lack of certainty means that the overall effect is to curtail speech and assembly for the purpose of political action.
In fact, that’s the entire purpose of creating these regulations, and everyone knows it. It’s an explicit feature of such regulation. Politicians talk about keeping the rich from running and buying elections, whether it’s the unions, the corporations, or the “special interests” boogeymen used by elected officials in passing these restrictions. What they really do is protect incumbents by making outside challenges more difficult through speech restrictions and legal intimidation. Even in this midterm cycle, where voter anger and engagement has almost reached a decades-long zenith, most people project a mere 60-80 seats in the House to change hands at best — which is less than 20%. More than 80% of incumbents will return to their jobs even with voters rating Congress lower than the media.
Certainly the IRS should enforce the law as it exists (as should the entire government in areas like immigration, for example). However, Baucus’ timing in demanding investigations speaks volumes about his motives. It’s yet another reason that campaign finance reform should get shelved in place of systems that require and deliver full disclosure for political speech, and voters can provide the market for both the speech and the candidates.
This is the new line touted mostly by the conservative side– all these campaign donations are insignificant, making the absurd argument that we spend more each year on irrelevant and unrelated things like yogurt or halloween candy, that the cash spent on campaigns is of negligible effect on the election outcomes, and, finally, that the threat of foreign influence on our elections through these funding channels is also negligible. Nothing to see here, move along.
David Brooks spouted this exact same nonsense in his op-ed column in the NY Times earlier this week, replete with a host of imaginary numbers to cloud just how much is being spent on both sides then claiming that, in the end, all the cash shoveled into this mid-term election has no real influence on the outcome, going so far as to claim that these multimillion dollar donations are more for the ‘feel-good’ effect they offer the donors than for the spoils that would most assuredly come back to them once their chosen candidates are declared victorious.
I think it’s obscene the amount of money spent by both sides of the aisle during these elections and am troubled by the anonymous nature of so many of these donations, but for the life of me I can’t figure out how best to correct it without running afoul of the Bill of Rights. Free speech is free speech even if you’re not always happy with the outcome. If a corporation wants to support a candidate, I’m guessing it should be allowed to do so just as labor unions and other large organizations can.
I do think, however, that these corporate institutions should not be able to hide behind anonymity when making these donations. All donations by corporations should have the company’s tax identification number on the donation check. Since the Citizens United ruling judged these corporations as having the same rights as individuals, perhaps their donations should be capped at the same totals as individuals. If Proctor & Gamble wants to give to candidate X, allow them to donate at the same limits as Mr. Proctor N. Gamble.
Another, more drastic solution would be to rule that the First Amendment doesn’t apply and set a federally-funded limit for all candidates. Allow every candidate an equivalent amount of campaign funds and airtime for commercials, eliminate third-party advertising, and leave it at that. Otherwise, it will soon reach the point where the total spent during an election cycle meets or exceeds the GDP of third world countries.
bench craft company complaints
Tree crushes miner to death at Mahdia - Stabroek <b>News</b> - Guyana
The life of a 49-year old miner was yesterday afternoon snuffed out after a tree fell on him while he was working at a mining area at Mahdia in Region 8.
Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 10/27 - Arrowhead Pride
Good morning Chiefs fans! There's some interesting Kansas City Chiefs news today. A great piece from Cory Greenwood's hometown newspaper, and more on Chambers' playing time start us off. Enjoy.
ABC <b>News</b> airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w <b>...</b>
ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.
bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints
Tree crushes miner to death at Mahdia - Stabroek <b>News</b> - Guyana
The life of a 49-year old miner was yesterday afternoon snuffed out after a tree fell on him while he was working at a mining area at Mahdia in Region 8.
Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 10/27 - Arrowhead Pride
Good morning Chiefs fans! There's some interesting Kansas City Chiefs news today. A great piece from Cory Greenwood's hometown newspaper, and more on Chambers' playing time start us off. Enjoy.
ABC <b>News</b> airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w <b>...</b>
ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.
bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints
Tree crushes miner to death at Mahdia - Stabroek <b>News</b> - Guyana
The life of a 49-year old miner was yesterday afternoon snuffed out after a tree fell on him while he was working at a mining area at Mahdia in Region 8.
Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 10/27 - Arrowhead Pride
Good morning Chiefs fans! There's some interesting Kansas City Chiefs news today. A great piece from Cory Greenwood's hometown newspaper, and more on Chambers' playing time start us off. Enjoy.
ABC <b>News</b> airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w <b>...</b>
ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.
bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints
No comments:
Post a Comment