President Obama (October 2010) complained about individuals who “hide behind those front groups,” called such groups a “threat to our democracy,” and claimed such groups were engaged in “unsupervised” spending

President Obama
139.
October 2010
complained about individuals who “hide behind those front groups,” called such groups a “threat to our democracy,” and claimed such groups were engaged in “unsupervised” spending
_______________________________________________
[PDF] pr 7% – Center for Competitive Politics
20 feb. 2014 – The following month, President Obama began the process
The next week the President complained about individuals who “
hide behind those front groups,’ called such groups
——————————————————————
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2014-02-20_American-Center-For-Law-And-Justice_IRS_Comments-On-Proposed-501c4-Rulemaking.pdf
Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice
ACLJ

American Center for Law and Justice

February 20, 2014

Mr. John Koskinen
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
CC: LPD: PR (REG 134417-13), Room 5205
Internal Revenue Service
P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station
Washington DC 20044

RE: Comments on IRS NPRM, REG-134417

Dear Mr. Koskinen:

The American Center for Law and Justice (“ACLJ”) respectfully submits these comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) issued by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS” or “Service”) on November 29, 2013

As set forth in the NPRM, REG-134417 “contains proposed regulations that provide guidance to tax-exempt social welfare organizations on political activities related to candidates that will not be considered to promote social welfare,” Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organizations on Candidate Related Political Activities, Internal Revenue Service, REG-134417-13, 78 Fed. Reg. 71535

The timing of the NPRM is troubling given the backdrop against which it has been issued

Currently, the IRS is being investigated by Congress and the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a result of abuses by employees and officials of the Service with regard to tax exemption applications filed under Sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) by conservative organizations

In a pending lawsuit, ACLJ represents 41 such conservative, grassroots organizations whose applications for tax-exempt determinations were improperly and unconstitutionally handled based upon their political viewpoints

The gravamen of this lawsuit is that the IRS and its employees deprived the Plaintiffs of their rights to freedom of speech and association under the First Amendment and the equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment

See Linchpins for Liberty, et al. v. United States of American (sic America), United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-0777-RBW

When the NPRM was issued, the ink was barely dry on the Treasury Inspector General’s Report which first identified the IRS abuses against ACLJ’s clients and other organizations — abuses that had been suspected yet repeatedly denied by IRS officials in Congressional testimony

201 Maryland Avenue, N E
Washington DC 20002
Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice
John Koskinen
February 20, 2014
Page 2

and elsewhere

Yet, without any apparent chagrin, the IRS re-entered the arena with the issuance of the NPRM in an attempt to further censor political speech and restrict freedom of association or amount of a social welfare organization’s political
1

1 The NPRM was issued over the Thanksgiving Recess and further suspect in and of itself

Indeed, the proposed regulations appear to be an attempt to double down on the improper actions of the IRS with respect to the rights of conservative, grass roots organizations to engage in free speech and free association

ACLJ opposes the proposed regulations in their entirety

In addition to the widespread perception that these regulations are being proposed for political reasons, the administration’s efforts to enact these changes should cease for at least three other reasons

First, the proposed regulations go beyond statutory authority

The Service states that these proposed regulations are necessary to address “the lack of a clear and concise definition of political campaign intervention”

78 Fed. Reg. 71536

(quoting Internal Revenue Service,

“Charting a Path Forward at the IRS:

Initial Assessment and Plan of Action”

at 20 (June 24, 2013)

(hereinafter “Charting a Path Forward”)

The Service further claims that

“‘[t]he distinction between campaign intervention and social welfare activity, and the measurement of the organization’s social welfare activities relative to its total activities, have created considerable confusion for both the public and the IRS in making appropriate section 501(c)(4) determinations
2

2 It is interesting to note that this purported confusion seemed not to have existed prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), which is discussed herein

78 Fed. Reg. 71536

(quoting Charting a Path Forward at 28)

If there are difficulties that the Service has in applying its regulations concerning 510(c)(4) organizations, these are problems of the Service’s own making because there is no authority under section 501(c)(4) that would allow the Service to evaluate the type or amount of a social welfare organization’s political activity in the first place

Thus, without Congressional authorization the Service has essentially imposed requirements upon organizations seeking 501(c)(4) exempt status, or operating pursuant to that status, that Congress has not authorized, and now the Service complains that those unlawful requirements have become difficult to administer and that, therefore, even more stringent requirements must be implemented

ACLJ submits that the Service lacks any statutory authority for the regulations as they currently exist

The proposed regulations which would even further restrict political activities should therefore be withdrawn and re-proposed without any such restrictions

Second, if the proposed regulations are implemented they will (sic – be) no doubt be challenged and are likely to be stricken as unconstitutional under the First Amendment

ACLJ submits that the Service, as a steward of the public fisc, should pause before engaging in agency action that fails so obviously to meet constitutional requirements

Third, there is no reason for the Service to further entangle itself in making political determinations given the fact that the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) already has in place an extensive regulatory framework to make these evaluations and a body of law already exists to interpret that framework

Thus, the Service should heed the advice of its own National Taxpayer Advocate and defer to the FEC on matters of political activity
Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice

Jay Sekulow ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice
======================================
Linchpins of Liberty v. United States
Case 1:13-cv-00777
October 18, 2013
——————————————————————
http://media.aclj.org/pdf/second-amended-complaint-filed-redacted.pdf
======================================
I.R.S. ʟ I a R S
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-v1
——————————————————————
UNDEMOCRATIC
How Unelected, Unaccountable Bureaucrats are Stealing Your Liberty and Freedom
======================================
Why is the Internal Revenue Service Corrupt❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-sT
======================================
BACKASSARD ALABAMA BLOG ARTICLES
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/P5tuFO-1
======================================

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s