RFK Jr. on voting machines

Another interesting piece from my former law professor on elections... this time on voting machines. This is a follow-up to his previous article Was the 2004 Election Stolen?. Check out, Will The Next Election Be Hacked? in the latest Rolling Stone.

IRS looking at churches

Interesting NYT article today:

I.R.S. Eyes Religious Groups as More Enter Election Fray

Of particular note:

“We became concerned in the 2004 election cycle that we were seeing more political activity among charities, including churches,” said Lois G. Lerner, the director for exempt organizations at the I.R.S. “In fact, of the organizations we looked at, we saw a very high percentage of some improper political activity, and that is really why we have ramped up the program in 2006.”

Churches are public charities, and for years have, to many, received a certain degree of a free pass from the IRS. After the release of Pub 1828 (PDF) and the PACI report (PDF) in February, the tide seems to be turning. It will be interesting to see how many religious organizations are the subject of audits for this election year. I have seen a lot of rather well-designed "how to avoid problems in your election-related activities" guides from left and right. It seems with the new attention, the faith-based community is also educating itself on the rules... which I chalk up as a good thing.

Charity or foundation?

The Washington Post called the world's largest private foundation a charity today. Seriously, not a big deal in the grand scheme of things... but also a fairly simple distinction.

Interesting how the terms "foundation" and "charity" are seemingly interchangeable, when they represent two very different types of entities. I suppose the foundation community might have spurred this on a bit by referring to grant-making public charities as "public foundations."

News of the day

Voting issues in MD and DC (about those electronic ballots...)

Colorado changes its rules (again)

Ohio, remarkably not imploding in the election-law sense... at least for today. Anything is possible with a Secretary of State policing his own gubernatorial election... we all know where I stand on that.

Also... Prof. Fran Hill lashes out at the IRS... for being too harsh on a nonprofit? Of course she's right in this instance, but I'm surprised by her stance to a certain degree. The last time I crossed paths with Fran -- whom I admire and respect greatly -- she was testifying before the FEC (PDF) that the IRS is not a good enough enforcer of its laws against 501(c)(3)s...

I know, I know... apples... oranges... just thought I'd mention it. It's that kind of blog post.

501(c)(3)s and elections

I just learned of this education opportunity for anyone wishing to learn more about the IRS rules on election-season activity by 501(c)(3) organizations. The teleclass is run by the IRS, and is broken up into two 1-hour sessions on September 19 and 20. For more information, check out the announcement here. Registration is required.

I will be producing a short session on election activity for 501(c)(3)s, and will post it here on the blog and at the nonprofit & political law section of tim-mooney.com within the next week or so. Stay tuned...

Chad Vader, Episode 3

A quick break from the world of nonprofit and political law to make way for the continuing saga of Chad Vader... Day Night Shift Manager

Breaking news... IRS rules in favor of NAACP

NAACP press release:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 31, 2006
Contact: John C. White (410) 580-5125

IRS DETERMINES NAACP SHOULD RETAIN TAX EXEMPT STATUS

Investigation concludes Association did not violate tax laws or commit undue political intervention

The Internal Revenue has informed the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) that it has concluded its examination of NAACP activities and determined the Association did not violate conditions of its tax exempt status.

“We have determined that you continue to qualify as an organization described in IRC section 501(c)(3),” the IRS wrote in a letter to the NAACP dated Aug. 9. IRS official Marsha A. Ramirez said that a review of video footage of the Bond speech and other information indicated “that political intervention did not occur.”

The IRS launched an examination of the NAACP on October 8, 2004 after receiving complaints from several Republican members of Congress who said their constituents believed NAACP National Board of Directors Chairman Julian Bond crossed the line of non-partisanship in a speech at the NAACP 2004 National Convention critical of Bush administration policies.

“It’s disappointing that the IRS took nearly two years to conclude what we knew from the beginning: the NAACP did not violate tax laws and continues to be politically non-partisan,” said NAACP President and CEO Bruce S. Gordon. “Tax-exempt organizations should feel free to critique and challenge governmental policies under the First Amendment without fear of IRS intervention.”

“The good news is that we are vindicated,” said Bond. “The bad news for us and other freedom loving Americans is that it was initiated for partisan purposes to threaten our right to free speech. We’ll continue to speak truth to power.”

The IRS initiated an audit of the NAACP just one month before the 2004 presidential election and nearly three months before the end of the NAACP’s tax year. The IRS refused to explain the basis of its investigation for more than a year. The NAACP learned the basis for the examination only after filing four Freedom of Information ACT requests (FOIA).

The documents included complaints filed by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), then-Senator Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), Representatives JoAnn Davis (R-Va.) and Larry Combest (R-Texas), then-Representatives Robert Ehrlich (R-Md.) and Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.) and political donor Richard Hug. In the interest of ensuring transparency, integrity and fairness in the administration of the tax law, the NAACP will release copies of all the documents provided thus far by request.

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.

###

Nonprofit law news

The good folks over at Alliance for Justice publish a near-daily list of news items regarding nonprofit law over at their nonprofit advocacy blog. I've added their news feed in the sidebar here... click on a headline for more info on the news of the day!

FEC rejects exemption

Reject may a strong word, but they voted it down 3-3. You can listen to the hearing here. Most observers say the courts will be handling the larger issue of whether BCRA can restrict legit grassroots lobbying... they're probably right. On to the pundits and reform groups...

Bob Bauer

Campaign Legal Center

Democracy 21

grassroots lobbying exemption?

The FEC is considering a temporary exemption for specific grassroots lobbying communications as we head toward the fall elections. Many advocacy groups support this exemption, as it will allow them to rally constituents to call members of Congress on some important bills next month. Reform organizations are against the proposal, seeing it as a potential loophole in the campaign finance regulations.

Take a look at the proposed reg here. I've never been a big fan of the "support, oppose, attack" langauge... it's completely vague and difficult to figure out in the context of a lobbying campaign. Can a group be critical of a congressman's votes, or is that attacking? Still, having seen how some organizations take advantage of the gap between express advocacy and electoral impacts *cough-cough... 527s* it's easy to understand why Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 are opposed.

Middle ground? I'd like to think there is a way to craft a reg that allows legitimate lobbying to occur during the blackout windows... but to date, no one has found that magic mixture of vowels and constanants that would please both sides of this debate.

Read more from CLC and Bob Bauer...

Grand re-opening

Greetings, and welcome to the new digs! I'd like to give special thanks to Apple's iWeb for helping make this site far, far better looking than I could have ever hoped with my meager html and css skills. If you're still Mac-phobic, I strongly suggest you give Apple a second look... it's amazing what one can accomplish with their gear!

As promised, this blog will shift content a bit. I'll be using this space to chat about the law, nonprofits, advocacy, podcasting, and a variety of other topics. In the very near future, I'll be posting some other blogs and resources here as well. On top of all that, I'll post some fun things from time to time that are utterly unrelated to any of the above. I think the continuing saga of Chad Vader fits in that category...

So, thanks for hanging out here in the tim-mooney.com lounge. More to come...

A new tim-mooney.com

There will be some big changes here at tim-mooney.com within the next few days... stay tuned for the new look and new content. In the interim, I've stripped down the blog for a more austere vibe while I truck in the new carpet and drapes...

Blogging to resume at some point...

... in the meantime, the continuing saga of Chad Vader, Dayshift Manager:

Something completely different

Enough seriousness. Introducing... Chad Vader: Day Shift Manager

Life is hard when you're Darth Vader's less-talented, less-charismatic younger brother and you manage a grocery store.

Ted Stevens... Series of Tubes

I don't know a lot about net neutrality, but I do know this... after hearing Senator Stevens' position I want to be on the other side. Enjoy this remix of his recent statements... apparently the internet is a series of tubes, and when his staff sent him the Internet the other day, it took awhile to get to him.

Improving elections

An interesting study was just released by Tova Wang via The Century Foundation on improving voter turnout. Most of these proposals have been floated out there before, but it's definitely a good read. Note that one of the bullets seems to conflict... at least on its face... with the Supreme Court's holding in LULAC v. Perry (PDF) regarding partisan redistricting. The report is available here (PDF). The suggestions are:

• Voters should be allowed to register up until and on Election Day.
• Election Day should be a national holiday.
• As long as a voter appears at any precinct within the county in which the voter resides, the provisional ballot cast by the voter should be counted for all countywide, statewide and presidential races.
• States should not have restrictive voter identification requirements.
• Social service agencies and departments of motor vehicles must comply with the National Voter Registration Act and provide citizens with an effective opportunity to register to vote.
• Take the partisan politics out of redistricting.
• Extend free media time to candidates.
• Parties and candidates should do more to personally engage voters.

The Dandy Warhols and I agree that Election Day should be a holiday, although I believe their support is a mere corollary to their stance that Every Day Should be a Holiday. This tortured musical reference was brought to you by Capitol Records. Have a good weekend...

"Top court upholds most of Texas redistricting plan"

The Supreme Court upheld most of the Texas redistricting pushed through by former Rep. Tom Delay... see the initial report here. Two quick hits... lawmakers can redraw the map anytime they want (so, if there's a change in party control, the Supremes just ok'd congressional redistrictin, it seems, every time), and the Texas legislature overstepped its bounds on some of the minority redistricting when they shifted lines around Hispanic neighborhoods.

More to come...

UPDATE... here's the PDF of the opinion.

The Onion

Campaign finance branches out.

The last person to weigh in on Randall v. Sorrell

The Supreme Court's release of its decision in Randall v. Sorrell coincided with a fairly busy time professionally, so I was unable to post even the most brief of thoughts here. Now, I'll have the distinction of being the last attorney to comment on the case...

Rather than repeat some of the comments I've posted below, I'll focus on the bigger picture... it seems we're in a bit of a transition in the area of election law and campaign finance regulation, and it's not apparent what the ultimate outcome of this transition will be. There are many that suggest that the new members of the Court will push campaign finance jurisprudence in the direction of deregulation... towards Justices Scalia and Thomas perhaps. After reading this case, I think that may be premature.

Given the Chief Justice's bent towards stare decisis (as promised in his hearings), it seems that Buckley may have a new lease on life. As I think back in the misty corners of the early 90s (yes, THAT far back), I remember being engaged in many a conversation that derisively referred to Buckley as "that money equals speech case." Now, it seems the venerable dino that I always remember starts on page 1 of its particular volume that contains it, is being referred to by some as a "super precedent" and by others as a landmark First Amendment case. I think this is the case because both are at least somewhat true. Buckley has survived constant attempts to limit or overturn it through the decades, and it indeed does stand on First Amendment principles.

So, back to the original point... where is the Court headed? My hope is that it heads in a somewhat alternative direction... one that allows for regulation, reporting or banning of activities that are truly corruptive of our system, yet is protective of speech through association. Unfortunately, the reform community has often taken the process too far, in my opinion. In an effort to rid the system of all corruption, it has sought to federalize virtually everything, regulating activities that do not do a thing to corrupt the federal election process, all in an effort to stamp out loopholes or perceived future loopholes. In the process, we could lose out on an important area of expresion... the ability for individuals to pool their money together to express common points of view. This freedom to associate (enshrined in the First Amendment, no less) is - at its heart - campaign finance reform. The small sums of money collect to become powerful against the potentially corruptive big money that may not necessarily have community or public interest at heart. So, the direction the Court should go towards would be to embrace some form of collective speech, yet develop and maintain strong regulation of corruptive influences. Piece of cake, right?

Mental note... last paragraph's policy wish list is full of holes... More to come on this thought process in later posts.

Interesting take

All four of my readers (hello again) know I often cite the writings of Rick Hassen when it comes to election law. I thought this was a very interesting take on the Chief Justice's POV in Randall v. Sorrell:

As I suggested in my recent article, No Exit? The Roberts Court and the Future of Election Law, 57 South Carolina Law Review 669 (2006), the Court could move slowly in this area, in the name of judicial modesty and stare decisis, to eventually dismantle Buckley. By deciding the case in this way, the Chief Justice gets to (1) strike down the Vermont limits; (2) put off a blockbuster and controversial issue to another day, knowing (because of the nature of Justice Breyer's test, that this issue will return to the Court); (3) signal as a more general matter that he is more moderate than Justices Scalia and Thomas, which could help him in both how the public views him and how often he can get the votes from the more liberal Justices in other cases.

Point three is the most interesting to me... it's been the subject of some banter between a colleague and myself for most of the term.