CCP
New Timeline Outlines History of the IRS Scandal
By Joe TrotterThe Center for Competitive Politics released a timeline today about the events leading up to and surrounding the IRS targeting scandal, in which the Agency targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny in its review of tax exemption applications. The timeline examines a wide variety of actions by elected officials, IRS executives, and outside organizations.“For years, the IRS was under intense pressure from a coordinated band of lawmakers and pro-regulation groups to crack down on nonprofit groups,” said CCP External Relations Director Matt Nese.Although the IRS began scrutinizing groups applying for non-profit status using politically biased criteria in March of 2010, pressure to closely examine 501(c)(4) groups started well before then. Initially, groups with names containing the words “Tea Party” or “patriot” were singled out for additional scrutiny.“In a number of cases, organizations and congressmen sent multiple letters to the IRS demanding additional scrutiny for Tea Party groups,” said Nese. “The IRS did not act in a vacuum. Over the course of several years, a loud, irresponsible, but effective cast of characters launched investigations, filed complaints, cheered government intrusions into constitutionally-protected speech and association, and still shouted for greater regulation.”
CCP’s Response to Sen. Durbin’s Request for Information
By David KeatingOn behalf of the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) , I am writing in response to your August 6 letter inquiring as to the Center’s involvement with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and our position on “stand your ground” laws.According to news accounts, you have sent similar or identical letters to more than 300 groups and you are quoted in an article as saying, “My concern is with the lack of transparency. As a public official, when I take a position, I stand up to explain and defend it. I file annual financial disclosures, campaign finance reports and have to face the scrutiny of public opinion.”The purpose of disclosure is to allow citizens to monitor government, not to allow government to monitor citizens. We recognize that in practice this distinction can dissolve. For example, if we demand public disclosure of who gave money to a public official, in order to monitor that official, we will necessarily give the government the tools to monitor us. But as a first principle for thinking about what disclosure is proper, it is a good starting point.“Because members of the Senate want to know” is simply not a valid reason for the government invading an organization’s privacy or the privacy of its supporters. “As a public official” is the key phrase in your response. You are a public official. You file financial reports and campaign finance reports because you are a public servant. Citizens do not have to report on their beliefs and activities to the government. The two are not comparable.
Campaign Finance Reform: “Good Government” as Intention, Rather than Result
By Brad SmithWe have often commented on the lack of any connection between campaign finance “reformers” apparent definition of success and any connection to actually having “healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy” or “good government.”The latest exhibit comes from Mark Schmitt, writing in the New Republic. Schmidt says that New York City’s primary elections show that the city’s system of government subsidized candidate campaigns is “a model for reform at the state and federal level.” As we have documented in the past, in fact New York’s system is both riddled with corruption and a source of support for corrupt politicians. Meanwhile, New York’s general election results are pretty much a foregone conclusion, with the populist grandstander Bill de Blasio a sure thing winner as the city returns to one-party rule with the exit of self-funded billionaire Michael Bloomberg from the city’s political life. (Mr. Schmitt backhandedly acknowledges that the Republican nominee, Joe Lhota, only has a chance if large independent expenditures, not limited by New York’s law, engage in the race. He describes such a competitive general election as a “danger.”) Indeed, even as de Blasio has been out decrying the allegedly corrupting effects of money, his own campaign has been embroiled in campaign finance shenanigans.
FEC
FEC: McGahn Departs Federal Election Commission
WASHINGTON – Donald F. McGahn II, who was appointed to serve on the Federal Election Commission in 2008, announced his resignation today.
Independent Groups
CPI: Legal fight brewing over ‘Stop Pelosi PAC’
By Dave LevinthalA new conservative political committee that’s clearly no fan of Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has nevertheless incorporated her name in its title — and federal regulators are pushing back.In a letter to Stop Pelosi PAC, an Alexandria, Va.-based hybrid political action committee that officially formed Sept. 5, the Federal Election Commission tells the group it must remove the “Pelosi” from its name unless its an authorized committee of the congresswoman herself. It is not.
Politico: IRS workers turn to elite D.C. lawyers for defense
By Lauren FrenchEven as the tea party-targeting scandal dies down, the staffers at the center of the mess are turning to some of the city’s top lawyers to defend themselves against ongoing investigations and congressional inquiries.Lois Lerner, who became the public face of the scandal as the former head of the IRS tax-exempt unit, turned to William Taylor. He’s a founding partner of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, where he has represented, among others, Strauss-Kahn and Kenneth Langone, who successfully fought prosecution in a high-profile executive compensation case.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Roll Call: Bachmann’s Cautionary Tale: Sweat the Small Stuff, or Pay the Price
By David HawkingsBut the watchdogs of congressional behavior, campaign finance regulations and federal criminal law haven’t dropped the Minnesotan from their sights. And, in the past two weeks, they’ve signaled they have found someone who was, at best, inappropriately ignorant about improper activity by the people who ran her boom-to-bust-in-five-months quest for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.An exhaustive 430-page report from the Office of Congressional Ethics portrays a campaign that was not only chaotic but also supervised hardly at all by the candidate. Bachmann suggested to investigators that she ought to be cleared of wrongdoing because she paid so little mind to what her campaign aides and the staff of her political action committee were doing. She was so hands-off, she said, that she never even discussed compensation with Guy Short, the Colorado political consultant central to both operations, because she “just trusted him.”
State and Local
California –– LA Times: Campaign finance bills fare poorly in California Legislature
By Chris Megerian and Melanie MasonBut several proposals fell by the wayside as lawmakers finished their work last week. Bills that would have increased the power of California’s campaign finance watchdog, boosted fines for violations and forced greater disclosure of donors — among other measures — stalled in the Legislature.Just one bill was sent to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk, SB 3, by Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco). It would require new training for campaign treasurers and mandate that officials study the possibility of replacing the state’s outdated website for tracking campaign finance information.
