Baucus' Chilling Effect on Speech

I wonder if re-posting this constitutes a contribution. I guess that would mean ALL opinion constitutes a contribution to something.. right? - Anyhow.. reposted from GetLiberty.Org

By Bill Wilson

Raw, brute force — that is the preferred campaign tactic of Obama and his allies in the Congress.

On September 28th, 2010, Senator Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) urging the agency to investigate 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations for “engaging in political activity”, as reported by Politico’s Ben Smith.

Senator Baucus cited the 501(c) section of the tax code, writing, “The law requires that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4), (c)(5) or (c)(6) entity must not be the primary purpose of the organization.” That is technically true. It is unconstitutional, however, and Senator Baucus’ letter demonstrates exactly why.

Not only has the tax code under section 501(c) been used to limit the types of speech that certain organizations can engage in — which on its face violates the First Amendment — now Baucus wants to use the IRS to intimidate groups and threaten their tax-exempt statuses “[e]ven if political campaign activity is not the primary purpose” of the group. This is designed purely to have a chilling effect on the speech of any organizations that are otherwise lawfully exercising their rights to freedom of speech.

The issue for Baucus boils down to disclosure. These groups are not required to publicly disclose their donors like political parties and candidates, although they must be disclosed to the IRS. For Baucus, that means they are not allowed to fully exercise their free speech rights under the First Amendment, even though the First Amendment provides for no such conditional exercise of the right.

Baucus is inviting the IRS to reinterpret the 501(c) section of the law, apparently to even rein in activities previously allowed for under that section. For example, he complains about the activities of Americans for Job Security in Alaska for promoting a referendum campaign, even though these groups are legally allowed to engage in referenda processes without any public disclosure requirements.

Under Baucus’ interpretation of the law, the Federalist Papers, which advocated for the adoption of the Federal Constitution via referendum, would be illegal because they were published anonymously under pseudonyms.

Justice Clarence Thomas had the same problem with the recently decided Citizens United decision, which upheld disclosure requirements of groups engaged in electioneering. In justifying his partial dissent of that decision, he wrote of the “the fallacy in the Court’s conclusion that ‘[d]isclaimer and disclosure requirements . . . impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities, and do not prevent anyone from speaking.’”

“Of course they do,” Thomas wrote, citing “real-world, recent examples” of intimidation: citizens receiving death threats for supporting a referendum, losing their jobs for appearing on a donor list, declining to donate to a candidate’s campaign for fear of reciprocity from a sitting attorney general, having their property defaced and damaged, and other clear examples of disclosure rules being used to silence speech.

“Disclaimer and disclosure requirements enable private citizens and elected officials to implement political strategies specifically calculated to curtail campaign-related activity and prevent the lawful, peaceful exercise of First Amendment rights,” Thomas explained.

“I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in ‘core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection,’’” Thomas concluded.

While Baucus and other members of Congress are concerned about legally-constituted groups openly expressing their views, they apparently have no problem with fraudulent voting. FOX News recently reported on massive voter registration fraud in Texas, where a group called “Houston Votes” registered some 25,000 people to vote — but only 1,793 of them turned out to be valid.

This follows widespread efforts by groups like ACORN to submit phony voter registrations in several swing states, including Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Missouri. ACORN had a long history of such fraud in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Mexico.

If Baucus had a commitment to fair and open elections, he would be investigating a clear pattern of voter fraud by shady ACORN-like groups; not deputizing the IRS to be his thugs to shut down legitimate debate. In the least, Baucus’ efforts to silence that debate show how little he and his ilk have to say in defense of the disastrous policies of the Obama Administration.

Individuals speaking out, whether publicly or anonymously, for or against candidates standing for public office, attempting to influence the outcome of legislation, or promoting ballot initiatives are no threat to “elections that are the constitutional bedrock of our democracy,” in Baucus’ words. Phony voters showing up at the polls are.

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government, a 501(c)(4) organization.

Obama's Internal Reporting Service?

By Howard Rich - Originally found at GetLiberty.org

America’s Founding Fathers envisioned a limited government in which laws were fairly and evenly enforced and justice was blind. Yet as government’s lust for additional power and its appetite for new spending have both exploded in recent years, so too has Washington’s apparent willingness to play politics with prosecutions and government leaks.

We saw this trend at work in the recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit against Goldman Sachs, which even a kindergartner could tell was timed to coincide with President Barack Obama’s “War on Wall Street” and the perpetuation of his failed bailout method of financial reform. We also saw it at work in the Florida U.S. Senate race, where an organized effort is underway to smear conservative candidate Marco Rubio.

In both cases these underhanded tactics worked – at least from public relations standpoint.

“Goldman case boosts financial reform efforts” one headline screamed. “Goldman charges bolster case for bank reform,” trumpeted another. “Goldman Sachs case could help Obama shift voter anger,” still another opined.

Of course Obama “categorically” denied that his administration had any involvement in the charges against Goldman – or any advance knowledge that the charges were being filed. In fact, he told reporters that his administration first heard of the lawsuit on television.

“We found out about it from CNBC,” Obama said.

That explanation strains credulity – particularly when you consider that Obama’s political machine, Organizing for America, purchased Google advertisements linked to the keywords “SEC” and “Goldman Sachs” just prior to the SEC announcing its lawsuit against the company. This was clearly a calculated move, which begs the question: What did Obama’s campaign team know that the White House (ostensibly) didn’t?

The Rubio case is every bit as suspicious. On the eve of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s decision to bolt the Republican Party and run for the U.S. Senate as an “independent” – headlines in the Sunshine State screamed of another curiously-timed scandal. Citing “sources familiar (with) the probe,” the anonymous allegation was made that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was investigating Rubio.

Rubio has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and maintains that no one from the IRS has contacted him. In fact, he has said that he “welcomes” any investigation into his finances. But the smears have damaged his campaign, as polls taken just prior to the leak showed Rubio leading Crist in a three-way race by seven points while two weeks later Rubio trails Crist by four percent.

It’s no secret why Rubio is being targeted. Months ago Crist was a shoe-in for the GOP nomination, but his Senate campaign collapsed when he began to embrace Obama and his failed economic policies. Could it be that Obama is now using the IRS as an “IOU” to bail out Crist’s flagging candidacy?

Internal Revenue Code prohibits the disclosure of confidential tax information or releasing details of an ongoing investigation – not only by the IRS but by any government employee at any agency, including the President. In fact, it’s a felony punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to five years in prison. In the interests of uncovering the source of this illegal leak, Americans for Limited Government (ALG) has filed requests with the Inspectors General at the IRS and the Justice Department asking both agencies to investigate. Additionally, we are asking members of Congress and the Obama administration to support this investigation as well as the prosecution of the perpetrator.

Only then can we be sure that this wasn’t a taxpayer-funded hit job.

In a broader sense, though, Obama’s allies need to be mindful that the executive branch of government exists for the purpose of administering our laws, not violating them. Their job is to conduct the people’s business, not engage in political espionage. America has already survived one administration full of taxpayer-funded “plumbers.” We cannot afford another.

The author is chairman of Americans for Limited Government.