The IRS scandal and democracy

A few thoughts this morning about the IRS scandal that broke earlier this week. Some background: A couple of “rogue” IRS staffers in the Cincinnati field office responsible for approving 501(c)(4) nonprofit registrations gave more attention to applications suspected to be “conservative” groups. They kept an eye out for terms like “Tea Party” on forms and either delayed those approvals or denied them altogether. The IRS inspector general found that this was the doing of a few “rogue” employees, not a directive handed down from superiors or President Obama. The head of the IRS still turned in his resignation earlier in the week.

First, it goes without (a whole lot of) saying that if IRS staffers were to keep an eye on 501(c)(4) applications, they should have applied the same scrutiny across all applications. They can’t single out groups with certain buzzwords in the name. It’s not a good governmental policy and it’s also a very easy way to get caught.

Also, looking at the whole realm of campaign finance reform, looking more closely at applicants for nonprofit status can be a good thing, if applied equally. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, most new political spending came from nonprofit groups with few transparency requirements, mostly from groups with a clear “conservative” bent (Citizens United itself was an organization set up to prevent Hillary Clinton from being elected). Nonprofits receive tax benefits, and current tax law says that nonprofit status should not be given to groups looking to influence elections, writes David Morrison of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.

Another angle: does size matter? Ari Berman of the Nation writes that the IRS focused on the wrong groups (local organizations with small budgets), and that the agency should look into the bigger organizations that already engage in what can be considered “political spending.”

Although some have called for more scrutiny, the scandal could result in less oversight by the IRS, writes Alex Seitz-Wald in Salon. While some had hoped for the IRS to clarify its rules on nonprofit groups spending on politics, the scandal might make such a clarification “politically impossible.” David Levinthal of the Center for Public Integrity writes that the scandal might even mean in influx of money for nonprofits, particularly those with a conservative tilt.

How did federally designated nonprofit organizations even reach the point of being unable to participate in elections? Colorlines looks at the history of nonprofit designations and finds that then-Senator Lyndon Johnson pushed for a change in law to remove nonprofits’ ability to participate in electioneering after multiple anti-communist and right-wing groups opposed his re-election to the Senate in 1954.

As it turns out, nonprofit tax policy has a lot to do with democracy — The scandal not only has great potential to lessen the public’s trust in an already disliked entity (after all, it was only a month ago that millions of Americans begrudgingly filed their tax returns), but could even go so far as to actually cause it damage.

Here are some additional links —

• ProPublica: Resources for investigating tax-exempt organizations
• ProPublica: Nonprofit Expolrer, search IRS 990 filings
• Colorlines: True the Vote says it was targeted by the IRS 
• Politico: IRS Scandal: A timeline of conservative groups under scrutiny
• Center for Responsive Politics op-ed: The Real IRS Scandal
• Time: The Real IRS Scandal

Just a bill

An oldie (if 2010 is “old”) resurfaced on Upworthy today. Via TakePart, Participant Media, Magnolia Pictures and GOOD Magazine, here’s another take on lobbying and money in politics, and how it affects bills, both those just sittin’ on Capitol Hill, and those already being debated inside:

Read more at TakePart, where they plug programs from OpenSecrets, Sunlight Foundation, and CREW to get money into the spotlight and out of politics.

That’s a lot of money (but don’t act so surprised)

Per OpenSecrets, the final tab for the 2012 elections came out today. How much money got spent between Presidential and Congressional candidates and interest groups?

6.3 billion dollars. (!)

Breaking that down a little more, per MSNBC, how much did it campaigns cost, on average, for Congressional winners?

1.69 million dollars. (!)

How about the average for Senate winners?

10.5 million dollars. (!)

None of these number prove to be THAT surprising. Early estimates had 2012 election costs at roughly $6 billion, and the television ads that bombard televisions across the country every cycle have to cost something.

Still though, elections have begun costing so much money to the point that they become inaccessible to common citizens, which leads government to exist only as the realm for the incredibly wealthy. The less accessible the election process is for those without money, the more distant they will become from the process altogether, which does not bode well for our democracy.

Demos report shows how money in politics restricts economic mobility

A new report from Demos, “Stacked Deck: How the Dominance of Politics By the Affluent and Business Undermines Economic Mobility in America,” shows how the influence held by wealthy political donors (who spend large amounts of money on campaigns and political issues) undermines economic mobility in the United States. Stacked Deck examines how the wealthy in America use the political system to maintain and increase their wealth, while restricting class mobility among the non-wealthy (and largely, communities of color).

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, as well as the rise of Super PACs have increased wealthy donors’ influence on politics, exacerbating an already existing trend. The wealthy few that have the ability to contribute large sums to candidates, campaigns, PACs and Super PACs also have different sets of priorities from lower income Americans:

Wealthy interests are keenly focused on concerns not shared by the rest of the American public, like keeping taxes low on capital gains, and often oppose policies that would foster upward mobility among low-income citizens, such as raising the minimum wage. Even when the wealthy do share the public’s strong enthusiasm for policies that help Americans get ahead, such as spending on higher education, they often prioritize tax cuts or deficit reduction in ways that squeeze the resources available for these very policies.

Not only do wealthy donors contribute more money to campaigns, they also have much higher voting participation rates and actively involve themselves in civic life. The wealthy use political power to increase their wealth, while lower income Americans and people of color are already underrepresented in our democracy.

Read the full report: Stacked Deck: How the Dominance of Politics by the Affluent and Business Undermines Economic Mobility in America

Democracy after Newtown

The tragedy last week in Newtown, Connecticut shook many of us quite a bit. Of course, the firearms debate that will ensue is an important one, so thoughtful debate as well as facts will be central to that discussion. Here are some stories and blog posts from today that give some insight into how some democracy groups have started to take a look at the tragedy:

• Gun Control and Gun Rights: Legislation, Policy, and Influence (via Sunlight Foundation): Sunlight looks at the information on gun lobby spending; the frequency that “gun control” and “second amendment” issues are brought up by members of Congress; and how best to track state and federal policy regarding gun laws.

• Backgrounder: the History of the NRA/ALEC Gun Agenda (PR Watch): The Center for Media and Democracy’s PR Watch takes a look at the long time connection between the NRA and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which dates back to 1994.

• Rupert Murdoch wants stricter gun laws after Newtown, but Fox News doesn’t get the memo (New York Magazine): Fox News reporters got a memo to not report on gun control issues.

• War At Home (Demos): Bob Hebert of Demos talks about the starting point for the debate, as well as some recommendations.

This is, of course, only the beginning. There will be many more stories in the weeks and months, and much more to talk about with regard to gun control and safety in this country.

Image via thethinkingblue on PhotoBucket

Approaches to money in politics

Trevor Potter of Campaign Legal Center (and Stephen Colbert’s campaign finance attorney) did an Ask Me Anything on Reddit yesterday, and above is his answer to one question regarding Super PACs. He says that if people press their members of Congress that money in politics is an issue, they will listen.

A couple of weeks ago, Lawrence Lessig and Fred Wertheimer, both money-in-politics experts in their own right, “butted heads” over the best approach to the problem. Lessig says that reform minded folks shouldn’t come together around a single piece of legislation and still consider others, while Wertheimer has been pushing the Empowering Citizens Act.

Via Huffington Post:

Lessig wants more time for his ideas, enshrined in the draft American Anti-Corruption Act, to be sold to the public outside Washington. Wertheimer, the inside Washington hand, already has congressional cosponsors for his measure.

The main point of disagreement between the two men emerged, Lessig told HuffPost, after he came a visit to Washington in September for the unveiling of the proposedEmpowering Citizens Act, the bill backed by Wertheimer and the Brennan Center for Justice and cosponsored by Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and David Price (D-N.C.). During this trip, Lessig said, he learned that other reform legislation would not be considered by Congress.

“The proposal that was going to be the proposal that Congress would take up was [Wertheimer’s],” said Lessig.

Disagreements can be good. They’re healthy for any movement, and it’s good to hear out all ideas. At some point we have to move forward, though. For something like money in politics, the solution is likely multi-faceted and would require considerable pressure from a lot of different places. It’s probably not the time to limit ourselves to thinking that one piece of legislation is the silver bullet.

Poll shows strong opposition to secret money in politics

A new poll conducted by the Corporate Reform Coalition on the influence of money in politics yielded these results —

Now THOSE are majorities! Filibuster-proof, if this happened to be the United States Senate. However, this is not the Senate, and something tells me that despite these numbers (which include 72+ percent support from Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) nationwide policy change will still be hard to come by.

Luckily, though, there has been some progress on the state level, and support of these broad ideas extends to support of more specific policies to achieve the goal of reducing the influence of big money in politics: heightened disclosure rules, small donor public financing, and shareholder control over corporate political expenditures.

Additionally, we know that the members of the Corporate Reform Coalition are on the case and will be pushing tirelessly for policy change at the state and national levels, so the will of the citizens who are actually united can be realized.

From the press release:

“This poll reflects what we are seeing at the state level,” said Susannah Goodman, Director of Corporate Accountability at Common Cause.  “Americans are fed up with secret corporate spending. They are ready to take action — boycotts, divesting stock, signing petitions, protests – whatever it takes to send a strong message to corporations to keep their money out of our elections.”

Check out the press release from Public Citizen and the coalition, and the analysis from our friends at Demos.

What can $5.8 billion buy?

MDG advertising has put together an interactive infographic showing the different things that the money spent on this year’s election could actually purchase. According to their math, a total of $5.8 billion has been spent on the 2012 elections. A million here and a million there certainly adds up.

They go a step further, though, and show how this money otherwise could have been spent. Sure, not all construction workers in Pennsylvania would buy a Bentley, but they could with $5.8 billion dollars. Each presidential candidate could also build their own rover to send to Mars. If only we had known that sooner, we could have had the first Martian debate tonight.

But, more important than that, $5.8 billion could hire over 137,000 teachers; pay in-state tuition and fees for over 800,000 college students for a year; the monthly rent of 6.7 million Americans; and a host of other things.

Money can’t buy everything, though — apparently not even a civil, thoughtful, truthful presidential race in the United States. Have fun with the site, and have fun with the last debate tonight. We’ll be watching, too.

Sam Waterston for fair elections

You might recognize Sam Waterston as the pitch man for Old Glory Insurance, but these days he’s more about fair elections. Check out this PSA he cut for Fair Elections New York and their public financing campaign. “The time is now for fair elections.”

If anyone can protect your elections from robots, it’s probably Sam Waterston.

State democracy news: South Carolina voter ID, and Montana campaign finance

Much of the news and happenings going on at the democracy front are taking place on the state level.

In South Carolina today, a federal court denied preclearance to the state’s proposed voter ID law, preventing it from being in place for this November’s election. However, the court did allow the law to go into effect for elections starting in 2013. This continues a trend pointed out by Stateline that involves courts putting a hold on voter ID laws for 2012 elections but allowing them to be enforced in future elections.

In Montana, campaign finance contribution limits have been temporarily restored by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which asked a lower court to provide further clarification on their ruling. Individuals in Montana are limited to contributions of $630 to candidates for governor and lieutenant governor, while contributions to other candidates for public office are limited to $160. These do not apply to federal Senate or House candidates, though.

We’ll see what happens as we move forward – how the voter ID law will be put into practice in future elections, and what will happen with Montana campaign finance limits. It appears as though, at least for 2012, these decisions will stand.