Van Hollen Sues IRS to Enhance Transparency of Campaign Finance

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.
National Journal
Patrick Reis
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Patrick Reis
Aug. 21, 2013, 2:58 p.m.

Rep. Chris Van Hol­len sued the IRS on Wed­nes­day, seek­ing to stanch the flow of an­onym­ous cam­paign cash by for­cing the agency to re­write dec­ades-old reg­u­la­tions on tax-ex­empt char­it­ies.

The Mary­land Demo­crat wants the In­tern­al Rev­en­ue Ser­vice to tight­en its rules on which groups qual­i­fy as “so­cial wel­fare” or­gan­iz­a­tions. The IRS cur­rently al­lows such or­gan­iz­a­tions — a tax-ex­empt class of power play­ers known as 501(c)(4)s, whose ranks in­clude Karl Rove’s Cross­roads GPS and the Obama-aligned Pri­or­it­ies USA — to dabble in polit­ic­al ad­vocacy, so long as they keep such activ­it­ies sec­ond­ary to their gen­er­al char­it­able work.

But Van Hol­len says that such a “primar­ily char­it­able, sec­ond­ar­ily polit­ic­al” ar­range­ment leaves open a loop­hole for overtly polit­ic­al or­gan­iz­a­tions to ex­ploit be­ne­fits in­ten­ded to be re­served for char­it­ies. Chief among those be­ne­fits is that 501(c)(4)s do not have to dis­close their donors, and so cor­por­a­tions, uni­ons, and oth­er groups can pour money in­to ad­vocacy ef­forts without fear­ing pub­lic back­lash — or in­deed any pub­lic scru­tiny at all.

Hop­ing to lift the cur­tain on polit­ic­al spend­ing, Van Hol­len wants the IRS to re­write its rules to re­quire 501(c)(4)s to en­gage ex­clus­ively in so­cial-wel­fare activ­it­ies, and keep out of polit­ic­al spend­ing en­tirely. If the groups want to get in­to polit­ics, Van Hol­len said, they should re­gister un­der a dif­fer­ent non­profit cat­egory — known as 527s — that would pro­tect the groups from tax­a­tion but re­quire them to dis­close all of their donors.

“You can spend the money, but the law does re­quire, as Con­gress in­ten­ded, that you [tell] the pub­lic where the money is com­ing from,” said Van Hol­len, who said his primary goal in the suit is cam­paign fin­ance trans­par­ency.

For trans­par­ency ad­voc­ates, the fight over polit­ic­al spend­ing has taken on new ur­gency since 2010, when the Su­preme Court’s Cit­izens United de­cision struck down cam­paign fin­ance laws that had pre­vi­ously re­quired dis­clos­ure of out­side groups’ polit­ic­al spend­ing.

Out­side polit­ic­al spend­ing has ex­ploded since the de­cision, as have the num­ber of groups seek­ing 501(c)(4) status. More than 3,200 groups sought the status in 2012, as op­posed to 1,735 in 2010.

But the IRS’s ef­forts to dis­tin­guish between char­it­able or­gan­iz­a­tions and polit­ic­al groups landed the agency in hot wa­ter with Re­pub­lic­ans earli­er this year, when Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials ad­mit­ted that some IRS em­ploy­ees had used cri­ter­ia that tar­geted tea-party groups seek­ing 501(c)(4) status for closer scru­tiny.

Re­pub­lic­ans de­clared the rev­el­a­tions a scan­dal, ac­cus­ing the ad­min­is­tra­tion of us­ing the IRS to pun­ish their polit­ic­al ad­versar­ies.

Van Hol­len countered Re­pub­lic­an claims that the IRS was en­gaged in polit­ic­ally mo­tiv­ated at­tacks with Demo­crats’ as­ser­tions that lib­er­al groups were also in the agency’s crosshairs. But he said the is­sue could be rendered moot by re­mov­ing the IRS’s ob­lig­a­tion to judge where groups stand along the blurred line between so­cial wel­fare and polit­ic­al ad­vocacy.

“The root of the prob­lem is that the IRS is cur­rently in the busi­ness of try­ing to de­term­ine wheth­er an or­gan­iz­a­tion’s “¦ primary pur­pose is so­cial wel­fare or wheth­er its pur­pose is polit­ic­al,” Van Hol­len said.

Van Hol­len is su­ing in his of­fi­cial ca­pa­city as a House mem­ber, and he is joined in the suit by sev­er­al groups ad­voc­at­ing for ad­di­tion­al gov­ern­ment trans­par­ency. The suit is be­ing filed in the U.S. Dis­trict Court for the Dis­trict of Columbia, and it also names the Treas­ury De­part­ment as a de­fend­ant.

Treas­ury and the IRS are cur­rently en­gaged in an ef­fort to bring more clar­ity to the bound­ary between so­cial-wel­fare and polit­ic­al-ad­vocacy groups, in­clud­ing look­ing at pos­sible nu­mer­ic­al thresholds on the per­cent­age of an or­gan­iz­a­tion’s funds that it would be al­lowed to spend for polit­ic­al pur­poses.

But while Treas­ury is in­volved in cla­ri­fy­ing the rules, the de­part­ment is steer­ing clear of in­vest­ig­at­ing the 501(c)(4)’s polit­ic­al activ­it­ies.

“That’s not with­in our pur­view,” Deputy Treas­ury Sec­ret­ary Neal Wolin told a House pan­el in May. “It is im­port­ant I think just to re­it­er­ate that the Treas­ury not in­volve it­self in mat­ters that re­late to the ad­min­is­tra­tion of the tax code and in par­tic­u­lar ones that have these kinds of polit­ic­al over­tones.”

What We're Following See More »
Trump Pocketed Insurance Money Following 2005 Hurricane
34 minutes ago

Donald Trump has said he received a $17 million insurance payment in 2005 following Hurricane Wilma, which he claimed did severe damage to his private club in Florida. However, an Associated Press investigation could not find any evidence of the large-scale damage that Trump has mentioned. Additionally, Trump claimed that he transferred some of the $17 million to his personal account thanks to a "very good insurance policy."

Trump Admits He’s Behind
44 minutes ago
GSA Delays Decision on New FBI HQ Until 2017
48 minutes ago

The General Services Administration "will not choose a location for a FBI headquarters until after the new year, a potential setback for Prince George's County and its aim to land the agency and its 11,000 employees. ... It had hoped to make a decision by the end of 2016, timing which would have favored Maryland in terms of political clout on Capitol Hill. Prince George's County Executive Rushern Baker had been pressing for a decision before 2017," while veteran Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski, who's retiring, can still influence the outcome.

McCarthy, Pelosi Team Up on National Guard Bonuses
1 hours ago

The majority and minority leader of the House are both saying "California's veterans are not to blame for being mistakenly overpaid, after a Los Angeles Times story revealed that officials are trying to claw back millions in bonuses from California National Guardsmen. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy called the efforts to recoup the money 'disgraceful,' and asked for the Department of Defense to waive the repayments soldiers would be forced to make if they inappropriately received re-enlistment bonuses for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said she's looking for a "legislative fix" in the lame-duck session.

IBD/TIPP Poll Shows a Dead Heat
3 hours ago

A new Investor’s Business Daily/TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence poll shows Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump each earning 41% support. On the one hand, the poll has been skewing in Trump's favor this year, relative to other polls. But on the other, data guru Nate Silver called the IBD/TIPP poll the most accurate in 2012.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.