Could Anger At the IRS Unite Democrats And the Tea Party?

What could bring reform advocates and tea partyers together? Anger at the IRS.

Tea Party supporters gather for a rally outside the IRS headquarter in Washington, May 21, 2013. A few dozen tea party activists and their supporters have gathered outside the IRS headquarters in Washington to protest extra scrutiny of their organizations.
National Journal
Patrick Reis
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Patrick Reis
Aug. 21, 2013, 8:31 a.m.

Rep. Chris Van Hol­len has a pro­pos­al he says can as­suage both the tea party’s con­cerns over IRS over­reach and pro­gress­ives’ fret­ting over the flood of an­onym­ous cam­paign cash un­leashed by the Su­preme Court’s Cit­izens United rul­ing.

His plan: Sue the IRS.

The Mary­land Demo­crat  an­nounced Wed­nes­day that he is su­ing the agency, as well as the Treas­ury De­part­ment, to de­mand a change in the way they eval­u­ate non­profits that pro­claim them­selves to be “so­cial-wel­fare” or­gan­iz­a­tions.

The IRS cur­rently al­lows such or­gan­iz­a­tions — a class of power play­ers known as “tax-ex­empt 501(c)4s,” 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 “primary 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)4s 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)4s to en­gage ex­clus­ively in so­cial-wel­fare activ­it­ies, and keep out of polit­ic­al spend­ing en­tirely. If the groups want to get in­to polit­ics, they should re­gister un­der a dif­fer­ent non­profit clas­si­fic­a­tion — 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,” Van Hol­len said Wed­nes­day.

The fight over polit­ic­al spend­ing has taken on new ur­gency since 2010, when the Cit­izens United de­cision struck down cam­paign fin­ance laws that had pre­vi­ously checked 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.

Van Hol­len said that his primary goal in the suit was cam­paign fin­ance trans­par­ency, but he hoped that the suit’s an­cil­lary con­sequences could pull in al­lies from the op­pos­ite end of the polit­ic­al spec­trum.

Con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans have been out­raged over the IRS’s cam­paign fin­ance role since the agency ad­mit­ted earli­er this year that some of its em­ploy­ees had used cri­ter­ia that tar­geted tea-party groups seek­ing 501(c)4 status for closer scru­tiny.

Van Hol­len re­jec­ted Re­pub­lic­ans’ claim that the IRS was en­gaged in polit­ic­ally mo­tiv­ated at­tacks, echo­ing Demo­crats’ re­cent claims that lib­er­al groups were also in the agency’s crosshairs. But he said the prob­lem 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.

What We're Following See More »
TWO MONTHS AFTER REFUSING AT CONVENTION
Cruz to Back Trump
2 days ago
THE LATEST
WHO TO BELIEVE?
Two Polls for Clinton, One for Trump
2 days ago
THE LATEST

With three days until the first debate, the polls are coming fast and furious. The latest round:

  • An Associated Press/Gfk poll of registered voters found very few voters committed, with Clin­ton lead­ing Trump, 37% to 29%, and Gary John­son at 7%.
  • A Mc­Clatchy-Mar­ist poll gave Clin­ton a six-point edge, 45% to 39%, in a four-way bal­lot test. Johnson pulls 10% support, with Jill Stein at 4%.
  • Rasmussen, which has drawn criticism for continually showing Donald Trump doing much better than he does in other polls, is at it again. A new survey gives Trump a five-point lead, 44%-39%.
NO SURPRISE
Trump Eschewing Briefing Materials in Debate Prep
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

In contrast to Hillary Clinton's meticulous debate practice sessions, Donald Trump "is largely shun­ning tra­di­tion­al de­bate pre­par­a­tions, but has been watch­ing video of…Clin­ton’s best and worst de­bate mo­ments, look­ing for her vul­ner­ab­il­it­ies.” Trump “has paid only curs­ory at­ten­tion to brief­ing ma­ter­i­als. He has re­fused to use lecterns in mock de­bate ses­sions des­pite the ur­ging of his ad­visers. He prefers spit­balling ideas with his team rather than hon­ing them in­to crisp, two-minute an­swers.”

Source:
TRUMP NO HABLA ESPANOL
Trump Makes No Outreach to Spanish Speakers
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Donald Trump "is on the precipice of becoming the only major-party presidential candidate this century not to reach out to millions of American voters whose dominant, first or just preferred language is Spanish. Trump has not only failed to buy any Spanish-language television or radio ads, he so far has avoided even offering a translation of his website into Spanish, breaking with two decades of bipartisan tradition."

Source:
$1.16 MILLION
Clintons Buy the House Next Door in Chappaqua
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Bill and Hillary Clinton have purchased the home next door to their primary residence in tony Chappaqua, New York, for $1.16 million. "By purchasing the new home, the Clinton's now own the entire cul-de-sac at the end of the road in the leafy New York suburb. The purchase makes it easier for the United States Secret Service to protect the former president and possible future commander in chief."

Source:
×