Oooo, a bunch of professional victims, and a single pro-Israel organization, “say they were targeted” by the IRS. IMPEACH!!!1111!!!
C’mon, nutjobs ALWAYS think they are targeted by the IRS. And the FBI too! And somebody from the inside always supposedly told them that it was true, too!
The real scandal here is that 501(c)(4) is even a thing. The more tax exemptions we create, the higher everybody else’s rates have to be, and then conservatives can complain about tax rates. It is a classic dysfunctional cycle.
Because the very essence and reason for the First Amendment was to protect people’s right to influence government.
I’ve always found it strange that people who insist that we need to allow the KKK to march through African-American neighborhoods carrying signs saying “Martin Luther Coon” and “Fuck Niggers” suddenly insist the First Amendment doesn’t protect a documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton.
So a 501(c)(4) can permissibly lobby as its primary activity, and it can engage in other political activities, so long as those are not the organization’s primary activity. That means there’s inherently some grey area with regard to who’s violating, and who’s not violating, the provisions.
In testimony before Congress, several of the conservative groups who were singled out by the IRS claim that their primary activity was neither lobbying nor political activities, but rather things like education about the Constitution. That may be code for “teaching people about a conservative vision of the Constitution,” but it doesn’t necessarily run afoul of 501(c)(4). So it’s not clear that these conservative groups were violating 501(c)(4).
On the other hand, Organizing for Action is a 501(c)(4). And OFA is pretty blatant about its purposes being political. From its website (emphasis added):
I would think OFA’s mission statement to “support President Obama” in his policy agenda and seek the implementation of Obama’s policies is inconsistent with the IRS’s prohibition on “direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.” But I concede that there may be enough grey area there to make an argument the other way. Regardless, I think that conservative groups are upset in large part because they were singled out for challenge, while liberal groups like OFA were not subject to the same level of scrutiny.
Influence government, sure. I have no problem distinguishing between advocacy for positions and advocacy for candidates. Neither does the law. I think Congress has a critical interest in limiting the amount of spending in campaigns sufficient to withstand strict scrutiny.
By that logic then, Congress should be able to regulate media coverage of an election for coverage they deem to be advocating for or against certain candidates.
They already do under certain circumstances. That’s why Donald Trump had to wait until *The Apprentice *finished its run to announce his candidacy in 2011.
And does that need to be squared with equality under the law?
Is it right and just that a man who has more money is entitled to more and louder political voice? Is the man speaking on a soap box in the city square politically equal to the man who can buy a television network?
Does the First Amendment guarantee the right of the wealthy to more political power? Is there some social benefit to empowering the ambitious and grasping above those who serve for modest reward? Are they smarter, better, more moral? Or do they simply have more money?
Your examples of the protection for unpopular opinion is quite beside the point. The KKK is welcome to their loathesome opinions, as are the Koch Brothers. And I accept that the KKK’s political power is commensurate with their numbers. In the thousands, perhaps, hence, negligible.
Why shouldn’t the Kock Brothers political power be commensurate with their number, being: two? I will vigorously defend their right to that equality of power. Indeed, it would be a positive boon, as it carries with it the enormous spiritual growth potential of humility and modest restraint. Builds character, I am told.
Well, here’s a big fat one: he is no longer a candidate, he is no longer running for anything. No one can be asked to vote for Obama. And did you miss this part in your cite?
Are you taking the rhetorical device of asking an incredibly cogent and pointed question on the presumption that I will gasp in horror as my position dissolves and evaporates before it? Is this the Perry Mason ploy, where I break down under your precise interrogation and blubber my confession to murder most foul?
Seriously?
If you want to play wildly exaggerated questions, do you favor a revocation and refutation of all laws concerning campaign finance? A silly question? I quite agree, so’s yours.
You raged about the Kochs having more political power than you do and raged that they shouldn’t be allowed to have that.
I pointed out that based on that logic we should regulate The NY Times since according to you the Schulzberger family shouldn’t have more political power than you or I.
Why is my question silly?
Why do you get upset about the Kochs spending their money to influence people, but not the Schulzbergers?
It’s certainly possible that that’s a legitimate argument. But then again, that’s why I suggested that there’s plenty of grey area in the law. OFA may not be violating anything. But if you’re right, then that’s another way in which rockn’roller’s statement is false. Organizations aren’t prohibited from engaging in political activities if they’re supporting a politician who is not running for office.
I would have thought you’d find that personally offensive:
Does your curiosity about money in politics extend to only wealthy conservatives? The law is offensive when it allows conservatives to hide their donors, but it’s fine when liberals are hiding their own contributions?
That’s easy… the NY Times attempts to live by Journalistic Standards.
The Kochs have no standards where their money goes.
Rupert Murdoch would be a better comparison to the Schulzbergers.
We know the quality of the product that Murdoch produces.
Some don’t care, but at least we know.
The NY Times is not perfect anyway.
They had their Judith Miller moments with the US invasion of Iraq.
And Now Judith Miller works for Fox News.
There you go.
And Running a newspaper to make money is not the same as running an Aluminum Company to make money and then use that money to influence politics.
Yes, there is quite a bit needs changing, it’s a long damned list. I’m a radical, there’s a whole lot needs changing. I am not, however, a revolutionary. I see no reason that I am compelled to turn the Constitution inside out simply so I can know who spends how much to gain power in my country. Is that too much to demand, for some reason?
And what might that reason be?
Whats the big hairy ass deal? Seems to me the crux of the biscuit is the anonymity of donors, an intense desire on the part of the financial backers of these groups to remain in the shadows. Why should I need to turn the First Amendment inside out in order to know their names? Of course I support free speech, but does that mean I support anonymous speech? Give me a reason, I’ll consider it.
Further, efforts to restrict the influence of big money donations on our politics is not something I just dreamed up, laws have been written, passed, examined and loopholed to death. But its not a new idea, not a bomb thrown from extreme left field, but right smack dab in the middle of the spectrum.
I’m likely way to the left of you, that don’t make me Trotsky.
Ok, I’ll take that as a yes, you do think that the government should restrict The New York Times because it’s wrong that the family that runs it has more political power and influence than you.
I’ll merely add that I’m a bit surprised you think such an attitude is left-wing.
Book-burning is something practiced by both those on the left and those on the right.
That said, it’s always cool to meet people who proudly admit to being a book-burner.
In what universe does wanting to limit the power of big corporate political donations make one a “book burner?” That’s one of the weirdest stretches of the imagination I’ve ever heard.
I agree with elucidator. And, gosh, gee, I once burned a book. So, obviously, all reformers are Nazis. What a revelation!
No…this discussion is tough enough without the Godwin-level absurdity. Why not base one’s rebuttal on what was actually said, rather than a weird parodical exaggeration. Or is that insufficiently oppositional?
Well, considering anonymous political speech, the Supreme Court held that:
“the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry.” Link.
In that case Ohio had a law prohibiting anonymous political or campaign literature which was overturned by the SC.
The SC reasoning:
“The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse. See Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630-31 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Ohio has not shown that its interest in preventing the misuse of anonymous election-related speech justifies a prohibition of all uses of that speech. The State may, and does, punish fraud directly. But it cannot seek to punish fraud indirectly by indiscriminately outlawing a category of speech, based on its content, with no necessary relationship to the danger sought to be prevented. One would be hard pressed to think of a better example of the pitfalls of Ohio’s blunderbuss approach than the facts of the case before us.
The judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court is reversed.”
Or maybe National Association for the Advancement of Colored People vs. Alabama?
So, your desire to limit anonymous speech has already been considered by the Supremes and found to be invalid.
Does that change your mind? Or is your desire to limit other the rights of those you disagree with so overwhelming that you’d rewrite the First Amendment to read:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Unless they are rich, in which case, this amendment does not apply.”
