Campaign Finance Disclosure and Section 527 of the Code: A Look at the District Court\u27s Opinion in \u3cem\u3eNational Federation of Republican Assemblies\u3c/em\u3e

This report examines the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in National Federation of Republican Assemblies v. United States, which dealt with section 527 political organizations

The 2013 IRS Crisis: Where Do We Go From Here?

This article argues that the IRS’s new proposed regulation on candidate-related political activities is a good first step. It creates a bright-line standard that is easy to apply and will reduce concerns that the IRS is manipulating the enforcement process for political gain. The regulation addresses serious concerns that some independent groups are circumventing disclosure laws in the code. These groups are improperly arguing that they qualify as social welfare organizations when in fact they are political organizations subject to disclosure under section 527. A better solution would be for Congress to pass broad-based campaign disclosure laws that would apply regardless of the type of entity engaged in the activity. Absent broad-based disclosure, the IRS has the responsibility to enforce the restrictions contained in the code. Under the proposed regulation, organizations wishing to engage in candidate-related political activities may still do so. They simply must do so through a section 527 political organization and disclose their contributions and expenditures. However, absent broad-based disclosure, groups will seek out other entity structures to engage in non-disclosed candidate advocacy

Tax Code Section 527 Groups Not an End-Run Around McCain-Feingold

This article ... will analyze both the statutory and constitutional questions concerning whether 527organizations are ‘‘political committees’’ under FECA and thus subject to the $5,000 cap on the contributions they receive from each donor. The article will also consider whether other forms of tax-exempt organizations besides 527s—most notably so-called 501(c)(4) organizations—provide an alternative means of circumventing this$5,000 contribution limit

Free Speech and the 527 Prohibition

Proponents of measures to make independent section 527 organizations into "political committees" under the Federal Election Campaign Act, subjecting the organizations federal campaign limits and reporting requirements, misunderstand both the role and result of regulation in campaigns and the jurisprudence in this area. Such measures would leave much activity unregulated and would induce a shift of activity from one legal structure to another, thus rendering any perceived partisan advantage arising from the measures improbable or incalculable. Organizations engaged in independent speech and association with no connection to candidates or officeholders cannot be made to register with the Federal Election Commission simply because they mention candidates; and they cannot be limited in the financial contributions they may receive for their independent communications. Independent organizations do not corrupt the legislative process. They are not corrupting the balloting process. They are a part of, not corrupters of, the information exchange process in and around elections. That politicians and party chairmen on both sides of the aisle favor restricting the speech of independent organizations on vaguely egalitarian grounds ignores the Supreme Court's clear instruction that limiting the voice of some to enhance the relative voice of others is foreign to the First Amendment. The instrumental value of this maxim is backed by data. Studies show that more speech in campaigns, not less, benefits voters of all socio-economic backgrounds

The Connection: Strategies for Creating and Operating 501(c)(3)s, 501(c)(4)s and Political Organizations - Third Edition

The third edition of "The Connection" explains the different roles and functions of charities, social welfare organizations, PACs and other types of nonprofits. We clarify the federal rules and illuminate the ways these organizations can work together to accomplish common goals. The third edition reflects the fundamental changes that have occurred in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, allowing corporations and labor unions to make independent expenditures, and the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Speech/Now v. Federal Election Commission permitting a new generation of independent expenditure PACs

Spending Millions to Save Billions: The Campaign of the Super Wealthy to Kill the Estate Tax

The multimillion-dollar lobbying effort to repeal the federal estate tax has been aggressively led by 18 super-wealthy families, according this report by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy. The report details for the first time the vast money, influence and deceptive marketing techniques behind the rhetoric in the campaign to repeal the tax.It reveals how 18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion have financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax, a move that would collectively net them a windfall of$71.6 billion.The report profiles the families and their businesses, which include the families behind Wal-Mart, Gallo wine, Campbell's soup, and Mars Inc., maker of M&Ms. Collectively, the list includes the first- and third-largest privately held companies in the United States, the richest family in Alabama and the world's largest retailer.These families have sought to keep their activities anonymous by using associations to represent them and by forming a massive coalition of business and trade associations dedicated to pushing for estate tax repeal. The report details the groups they have hidden behind -- the trade associations they have used, the lobbyists they have hired, and the anti-estate tax political action committees, 527s and organizations to which they have donated heavily.In a massive public relations campaign, the families have also misled the country by giving the mistaken impression that the estate tax affects most Americans. In particular, they have used small businesses and family farms as poster children for repeal, saying that the estate tax destroys both of these groups. But just more than one-fourth of one percent of all estates will owe any estate taxes in 2006. And the American Farm Bureau, a member of the anti-estate tax coalition, was unable when asked by The New York Times to cite a single example of a family being forced to sell its farm because of estate tax liability