Leave New IRS Free Speech Rule in Place
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
We cast our ballots in secret. Our right as individuals to vote privately, with no one looking over our shoulder, is ingrained in our collective political consciousness. So why does that same principle not apply to the act of choosing to support candidates or causes with our hard-earned dollars? Shouldn’t we be able to support the causes of our choosing without having to worry about opponents learning about it, so they can intimidate or harass us?
That’s a question for Senate Democrats as they push for passage of a resolution that would overturn a rule recently promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service effectively shielding from public scrutiny the names and addresses of significant donors to nonprofit groups.
That new IRS rule – Revenue Procedure 2018-38 – exempts certain tax-exempt organizations that are not 501(c)(3) organizations from the requirement to report on their tax returns the names and addresses of their contributors who donate more than $5,000 in a given year. Such organizations are still required to maintain the records, in order to make them available to the IRS on request, but no longer will they have to include the information on their tax returns.
That new rule – a boon to free speech – made perfect sense when it was proposed in July of this year. The donor information was already required to be kept confidential, and was irrelevant to the administration of the tax system anyway, according to the IRS. Maintaining the confidentiality of the donor information was a burden to the IRS itself (by law, the information had to be redacted from nonprofit tax returns before they were made available to the public), and having it on hand created the possibility that it could leak, either by design or by mistake.
The IRS’s solution was simple – since it does not need the information, it wouldn’t collect it in the first place. Free speech advocates rejoiced. Montana Democrat Sen. Jon Tester wasn’t one of them. On Sept. 24, Tester introduced a resolution of disapproval, which now has 35 co-sponsors – all Democrats.
Because it is a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, it is not subject to filibuster. It only needs 51 votes to pass. That means Senate Democrats only need to find two Republican senators to cross party lines.
As the leader of an organization that was unlawfully targeted by the IRS – and, as a consequence, had donors who came to me in tears, fearful that they were being audited by the IRS as a result of their contributions to our organization – I have some thoughts on this matter:
First, it is a fact that donors to Tea Party groups were 10 times more likely to be personally audited than the average taxpayer.
Second, Congress long ago gave the IRS wide latitude to administer the tax code via regulation. The original requirement to collect the information was an IRS rule, not a law passed by Congress. Now that the IRS has determined it no longer needs the information, and has issued a new rule relieving nonprofits of the burden of filing the information, why should Congress tell the agency otherwise?
Third, we know of at least one case where the IRS had to pay a nonprofit group to settle a lawsuit brought when the IRS divulged private donor information to a left-wing reporter, who then gave the private donor information to a left-wing political organization, which then used the information to harass and intimidate the organization’s donors. Letting the new rule stand in place would mean the IRS would not have the information at hand in the first place, and so could not later leak the information publicly, either by mistake or by design.
Fourth, terminating collection of this information might actually help the IRS restore its reputation, tattered since the Tea Party targeting scandal.
Fifth, it’s ironic that the leader of a group targeted by the IRS now finds herself in the position of pointing out that we recognize that under the Constitution, one of Congress’ most sacred duties is oversight of the executive branch – but in this case, the executive branch agency is self-regulating and reining in its own power, while Senate Democrats are trying to reverse that move, and give an executive branch agency even more power.
Finally, to Senate Democrats pushing to reverse this rule change: Are your memories really so short? In announcing his opposition to the IRS proposal, Tester called it “the swampiest, darkest, dirtiest decision.” Given my own experience, I’d use that description to describe the sustained campaign during the Obama administration – egged on by Senate Democrats – to target conservative non-profits.
The IRS proposal is a belated remedy to curb those abuses. Senate Republicans shouldn’t even think of crossing party lines to join Senate Democrats in restricting our right to freedom of association and freedom of speech.
Jenny Beth Martin is chairman of the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund.
Tags
Who is online
25 visitors
“That new IRS rule – Revenue Procedure 2018-38 – exempts certain tax-exempt organizations that are not 501(c)(3) organizations from the requirement to report on their tax returns the names and addresses of their contributors who donate more than $5,000 in a given year. Such organizations are still required to maintain the records, in order to make them available to the IRS on request, but no longer will they have to include the information on their tax returns.
That new rule – a boon to free speech – made perfect sense when it was proposed in July of this year. The donor information was already required to be kept confidential, and was irrelevant to the administration of the tax system anyway, according to the IRS. Maintaining the confidentiality of the donor information was a burden to the IRS itself (by law, the information had to be redacted from nonprofit tax returns before they were made available to the public), and having it on hand created the possibility that it could leak, either by design or by mistake.
The IRS’s solution was simple – since it does not need the information, it wouldn’t collect it in the first place. Free speech advocates rejoiced. Montana Democrat Sen. Jon Tester wasn’t one of them. On Sept. 24, Tester introduced a resolution of disapproval, which now has 35 co-sponsors – all Democrats.”
another example of teapublican transparency
So you are against free speech?
It's a Liberal thingy !
This has nothing to do with "free speech". That is a red herring thrown by the moronic author of this trash seed.
No one is stopping speech by requiring the names of donors be listed. What Republicans, bigots and racists everywhere want is "hidden speech" or "free of consequence speech" where groups can surreptitiously support vile racist candidates without consequence, without anyone knowing.
Free speech is about standing up and having your voice heard, and that isn't being denied. If you support a candidate that has been accused of raping kids, well stand up and be counted, don't hide behind the skirts of the law to hide your speech from any dissent. If you can't openly support a candidate or a cause, why the fuck are you supporting someone you're embarrassed to let anyone else know you support?
Yep. Has absolutely nothing to do with 'free' speech. What they want is to be free from oversight.
More dark money.
Rules are changed by those who don't want to express their true fascist ideology so they hide behind laws while supporting genocide and their dictators rule. They have to change the laws because if they didn't everyone would think poorly of them for being a fascist. So go ahead, support and defend the "protect fascists" law which will allow them to grow and thrive in anonymity.
The rule was only instituted when the law was passed that allowed tax-exempt organizations to collect money and spend it on political advocacy. And no, I felt the rule to require the groups to report their donors was a reasonable one and wasn't denying anyone any "free speech". The very claim that having to report your donors is denying free speech is laughable.
Where attack dogs?
In America, you're allowed to express yourself openly. That's our freedom of speech. You can stand on any street corner and shout your opinions till you're blue in the face. You can spend your money making your soap box bigger giving you a louder bullhorn to express your opinion. But one thing we have never been free of is consequence.
If you have to wear a hood or hide behind non-disclosure rules/laws to hide your political ideology or racist/fascist tendencies, maybe it's time to re-asses why you support something you're so embarrassed about. If you're a Nazi, go ahead, wear that swastika and MAGA hat and march around shouting "Jews will not replace us!" while defending a confederate monument, that's your right. But don't expect the rest of us to treat you the same after we see your face marching lockstep with other fascists.
When the conservative Southern Dixiecrats created the KKK anonymity was part of their plan for power. This rule change proposed by Republicans today is nothing but a demand to allow conservatives to put their hoods back on.
this seems to be the case. Freedom of Speech does not exclude you from consequences (nor criticisms) of said speech (and i don't care if you are liberal minded or conservative minded - you still face consequences of your speech, that's part of your freedom) - yet this looks like that people want to be "protected" for their freedom of speech from others criticizing that speech. If you aren't free to criticise that speech (by hiding that speech etc) then you are losing freedoms aren't you ? (like i said, i could care less if you are liberal minded or conservative minded)
Exactly. It's the conservatives who don't want to let the poor and elderly in their communities know that they want to eliminate Medical, Medicare, welfare and Social security. They want to gut the programs while simultaneously commiserating with those who just had their safety net stripped away and transparency would keep them from being able to point the finger at their opponents blaming everyone else but themselves.
Haha. Hear a buzz word...repeat...
free speech is great, as long as we know which tea party terrorist is doing the speaking.
free speech equals dark money laundering to teapublicans. without it they wouldn't be able to line the pockets of the subhuman relics in the legislature that perpetuate this ongoing fraud on the voters.
No more episodes like targeting CA. prop 8 supporters in 2009 after the 08 elections. The inability to get leaked donor lists for harassment purposes is really irking progressives
....Unfortunately, many abusive politicians and so-called “deep state” operatives have proven their disdain for the will of the people — and the Constitution — through their words and actions.
The brilliant rules established by our forefathers are under constant assault, especially by those within our government. To preserve their power, misguided and corrupt officials look for any way possible to entrench themselves and limit individual freedoms and liberty. While such nefarious activity used to be hidden, it’s becoming more exposed every day — thanks to investigators, whistleblowers and blatant insubordination by dissident officials. Yet, rather than apologize, many “deep state” officials are digging in and defending their illegal, unpatriotic actions.
It’s hard to understand how these activists are able to twist themselves into an ethical pretzel and blatantly disregard the rights of the people that they are charged to protect.
Comments Democratic California Rep. Ted Lieu made on Dec. 12 illustrate the problem. In a broadcast interview, he used his First Amendment rights to not only attack the Constitution, but to advocate for regulating free speech. Lieu stated, in part,”I would love to regulate the content of speech.”...
I give you a thumbs up, a up-vote and 6 points.
Citizens United should be repealed because money in elections is not free speech. A corporation is not a person and not entitled to the same rights that a citizen enjoys.
Feel free to try to amend the constitution or get enough new justices on the court to reverse itself. But this issue isn’t about CU. It’s about being able to donate to tax exempt organizations privately. This will likely affect the FFRF lawsuit against churches in DC that I seeded about recently. This is a great rule for all charitable contributors and for the organizations receiving such donations. This rule protects individuals who a charitable donors.
So you're saying the Google and Facebook should not have free speech, when they already censor or delete political speech and favor left wing causes in their search engines?
What Citizens United made clear is that corporations and companies of any size can act collectively and as one voice when it comes to their political preferences and spending.
Then how can you be for that and at the same time be against unions?
Trump lost the popular vote even though he was giving 5 Billion dollars worth of free Media negating much of the negative impact of the CU ruling.
You could say he funded his White House run with the slogan, "If it bleeds, it leads!" .
However, since it's highly unlikely that a future Presidential candidates will be the gruesome, bloody train wreck that candidate Trump was, they will not be receiving more free media time than others in the race are able to buy.
Would that be one of those...….."Liberal Types" trying to stump Trumps run for President, DO not know what they really do ?
Now....
What would that REALLY say about a "Liberal Type' then ?
I hope you are correct, one of my fears is trump has set a new prerequisite. Will we not really want another trump when he departs But still Need another one similar because of the way this one leaves us ?
Slipping down the rabbit hole... one level at a time.
At least you have Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez now. She's ………. Special !
Not an excuse for how Trump became President despite what the American voters wished for, by the millions, just a truth for the slow that try to lessen the negative impact of the CU decision by claiming that Trump won despite CU being in place.
From the link provided in my first post.
LOL
Yeah she does seem to be that.
I guess we have two rabbit holes ta choose from.
I still choose neither.
Did the media and trump both profit from it ? Good question. I'd say, yeah.
I gotta choose the one that lets ME keep the money I work for, instead of the one that is going to require ME to contribute to "Others" ….. for nothin' !
And whose fault was that? If the media wanted Trump to win the Republican nomination and so hung on his every word. Then found out that he had played them during the national election when the media went negative on him.
You want someone to blame for Trump- blame the media.
Googke and Facebook are not entities requesting tax exempt status!
Best of luck to you on that working out well for the long run, cause I'm kinda along for the same ride, although pretty much unwillingly in many parts.
.............
instead of the one that is going to require ME to contribute to "Others" ….. for nothin' !
I agree there although I am willing to contribute to a degree to help those who thru no fault of there own can not contribute a ting and instead many times are in need of help.
I've worked first hand with some really financially poor, despret, elderly mainly, sick, deserving folks some of witch we're retired disabled american veterans.
As a middle class, physically capable, educated, working man I didn't mind doing either. I felt I was doing my part to help and the pay off was not having to watch grannys and the disabled suffering on every street corner whenever I left my home.
End the waste, abuse, incompetence and corruption, not the safety net.
No matter how the "Lefty" media or the Democrat Politicians try to spin it, Trumps "Crummy
" Tax reprieve helped me bunches, and I'm NOT a Fortune 500 guy. 
and I'm serious, Good for you.
I happened to do very well while the last president was in office and I sure dont feel one bit bad about it. Very happy and grateful in fact, I needed it.
Maybe IF the damn politicians would start working together again we could float the whole boat at the same time. That'd be Great.
And if pigs could fly......
lol
As IF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Politicians are just in it for their own paycheck.
Whats' funny (MORE SAD) ....Trump came into Washington as a Millionaire.... while Most of the elected "politicians" leave Washington as Millionaires.
Now what's wrong with that picture ?
I did as well and I'm a straight white male. You'd think by listening to conservatives that Obama destroyed America instead of the actual rescue that happened during his 8 years in office. When you list the metrics side by side with Trumps only an idiot would claim Trump has done more for this nation, but these worthless sycophant Trump supporters don't want facts, they want to feel vindicated in their seething hatred for President Obama that is most likely seated in some deeply rooted prejudice they simply refuse to admit to anyone, not even themselves.
It's incomplete actually.
When trump leaves office a millionaire still and not a billionaire that would be a more complete picture.
They thing is I dont really know IF the system can ever be fixed. The people incharge really have little incentive to fix it, fixing it, actually hurts some or most of them. Not gonna happen.
Destroyed from within, another country government shot ta hell by greed and power.
Where do we migrate to ?
Now yuse is jist conjectifyin' in that there staytmint !
One does have to wonder.
I too am anything but rich, on the edge of middle and working class and I will benefit from the tax cuts and did get both a bonus and a pay rate increase because of the tax cuts.
.
The results from Trumps "Crummy" tax scheme are trickling in and the negative impact on our Country is becoming clearer every day.
.
Trump’s Tax Cuts Made a Difference in 2018. Just Not the One Backers Were Hoping For
.
The Trump tax cuts are putting America in a hole
Yahoo Finance-Dec 12, 2018
.
Trump's Tax Cuts Haven't Spiked Job Growth
Forbes-Dec 8, 2018
.
Treasury: U.S. Budget Deficit Widened to $305 Billion in First Two Months of Fiscal 2019
Wall Street Journal-9 hours ago
When newspaper editorial writers or media pundits pontificate their opinions, is that not corporate paid free speech?
for decades the left has sought to censor or restrict free speech other than their own. It is consistent with all statists
Or books. The government admitted during the CU hearing they had the power to ban books.
Please do tell us what "speech" you've been denied access to? What conservative media pundit have you not been able to get a hold of their words and voice? Even Alex Jones and other actors portraying crazy conservatives to milk morons out of money are easily found.
So please do explain how this new rule will actual stop anyone from speaking freely.
If the answer is "Well I want to express myself but I don't want to face the consequences!" then you're not being denied free speech.
No problem.
While we are at it any non-profit that receives federal funding, and has a PAC or lobbying group, should lose that federal funding. Start with Planned Parenthood. Then head onto Unions, Churches, and the rest.
Because a non profit organization is not a person; and not entitled to the same rights that a citizen enjoys.
IMO: Small individual donors remaining anonymous is a good thing,
But when anyone or any organization donates much more than the average citizen can I think knowing who is buying additional influence in electing the people who in turn have power over the average citizen is also a good thing. No mater how those additional moneys are funnelled into our system.
We the people for the people and of the people IMO: Should not be controlled by the few who hold the majority of the gold. At least not in America. And when they do assert their influence it should be known.
My opinion.
That is basically what this is. They want the more than average donations hidden.
THEY will probably get THEIR way.
Swirl Swirl Swirl
The sound of the average American's personal power going down the tube.
And that's all folks.
"We cast our ballots in secret. Our right as individuals to vote privately, with no one looking over our shoulder, is ingrained in our collective political consciousness."
"Some squeamish folks" consciousness anyway.
I don't mind one bit letting someone know whom I voted for.
I'm a "transparent" kinda guy after all ! You'll know EXACTLY what you'll get from me....RIGHT UP FRONT !
BELIEVE IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I too am a believer.
exempts certain tax-exempt organizations
If any of those TEO's are churches and they are donating church money to political candidates, they need to lose their TES.
Churches already didn’t have to compile donors lists and turn them over to the IRS. Now the same applies to the other not for profits.
When it comes to TE, they sure as hell need to disclose.
The political left just wants access to the donor lists
No, they don’t.
The satanists went to court to try to coerce churches into being treated like the rest of the tax exempts in filing and now the IRS made the FFRF lawsuit moot by making it so no one has to disclose their donor lists. Now they can’t be leaked, or “accidentally” given into the wrong hands.
And now that the bigots at SPLC have labeled various religious groups so called hate organizations it’s more important than ever to Keep donor lists away from SPLC like minded terror causers.