IRS cracks down on charity cheats

CNN has the story... this is more of an issue for your donors, but its important to be aware that the IRS is turning its attention to abusive claims of charitable deductions...

What's next for campaign finance reform?

Bob Bauer posts on the future of campaign finance reform without Marty Meehan (D-MA) at the helm. Meehan is set to retire from Congress in a few months. Without his co-sponsor, what's next for Chris Shays (R-CT)? Well, after a major scare in the 2006 election at least he doesn't have to worry about facing hockey legend Mike Richter in 2008 anymore...

Impact of web ads

The L.A. Times has an article today regarding the now well-traveled anti-Clinton 1984 parody ad that hit YouTube several weeks ago. One thing that seems to be of issue lately is the fact that federal election law largely leaves these ads alone. This ad was produced - from what we can tell - by an individual unaffiliated with the Obama campaign. Assuming this is accurate, and there is no coordination, the law categorizes this now very effective ad as free speech with no reporting or limits whatsoever.

Many suggest that there should be disclosures involved with these ads. In the article, Rick Hassen notes that the low cost of these types of ads removes the interest in requiring disclosures. I agree wholeheartedly with that... producing these types of ads are now so incredibly cheap that the actual expenditure might only be a few dollars. Consider that the ad in question likely was produced on a home computer using iMovie, or some other type of inexpensive video editor. The clips are free, and uploading to YouTube for distribution is free. How much of a quid pro quo could there be (from a corruption standpoint) for an ad expenditure that was only a few bucks? This begs the question... would the required consitutional basis for overcoming a First Amendment challenge to regulate these types of ads need to rely on the impact of the ads rather than the cost? Clearly this ad has had great impact... but there are (I'd wager) hundreds of other ads floating on YouTube that have had no impact whatsoever. Should their creators also disclose their identity, or does it not matter since their impact has been closer to zero? What are the metrics on this? Rick suggests in the article that disclosure is important to weigh credibility... I'm not sure that is a sufficiently compelling interest for First Amendment purposes.

Lots of questions remain... as always in the realm of campaign finance, the answers may be a bit elusive.

UPDATE: Slight correction above... I'm reminded that disclosure requirements are subject to exacting scrutiny, as opposed to strict scrutiny under McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n. Still a tall mountain to climb for anyone that would propose disclosure requirements for these types of ads.

Nonprofits: good apples

My former colleague Liz Towne at Alliance for Justice wrote an excellent letter published in today's Washington Post. A recent rule change at the OPM drops the 25% administration cost cap to qualify for charity programs run by the feds. This is a good idea... frankly, as Liz notes in her letter, setting an arbitrary administrative cost percentage that suggests one type of charity is efficient and another is not is a poor method to measure effectiveness. There are a host of other factors that contribute to efficiency and efficacy, including the size of the organization and the services it provides. There are better ways to measure these things, and administrative costs should be a part, not the sole method to make the determination.

Check out the letter here.

Internet ads... back to the future?

We mentioned this pro-Obama, anti-Clinton ad that borrows heavily from Apple's famed 1984 ad on the latest Capital Caucus. I'm sure that's the reason why it's made the print media and Rick Hassen's blog. Or not...

It's interesting to see the viral explosion of a cleverly created advertisement... how this will be regulated in the future - and my guess is that it will be - is open to some debate. For now in federal elections, the Internet is pretty much wide open unless there's a paid advertisement involved.

The big announcement

Beginning today, I am embarking on a new path...

Tim-Mooney.com is now the hub for two ventures... the first is a solo law practice focusing on nonprofit organizations, and the other is an expansion of my podcast and technical consulting services. I am incredibly excited that I am now able to devote equal time to my two passions, and I am doubly excited that I will be tapping into the same entrprenurial spirit that began my career.

Look for changes to the site in the very near future... new content... new focus... it's exciting and invigorating. If you are interested in chatting with me about either of these ventures, feel free to email me at tim(at)tim-mooney(dot)com.

blog news and what made my day

Exciting changes coming to tim-mooney.com blog readers! After a little off-line feedback, I've come to the conclusion that I am literally the only person in the country that simultaneously cares about federal election law and podcasting. I know... giant shock. Consequently, I'll be splitting the blog into two within the next few weeks. One will focus on podcasting and tech, and the other will focus on political law. More to come on that... the relaunch will be part of another exciting announcement I'll be making next week.

Now... what made my day today? The FEC just announced it's making their Advisory Opinion database searchable in a way that actually enters the 21st century... details here in the well-titled post, "Christmas comes early for election lawyers."