By Ken Blackwell and Ken Kulkowski – Breitbart – December 3, 2013
“The power to tax involves the power to destroy,” the Supreme Court wrote in 1819, shortly after America began.
Now in
2013, President Barack Obama is launching a frightening attack on
free speech, using one of the most feared agencies in all the federal
government: the Internal Revenue Service.
One of
the most roundly-condemned aspects of Richard Nixon’s malfeasance
in office was his use of the IRS to target his political enemies with
audits. If people shudder at Nixon’s abuses with the IRS, what
Obama is doing should drive them to convulsions.
Obama
seeks to silence dissenting voices with unprecedented new regulations
to curtail political speech by nonprofit organizations. These new
rules would help silence conservative organizations and Obama’s
critics and raise serious First Amendment concerns, as these rules
look like the federal provisions struck down as unconstitutional by
the Supreme Court in its famous Citizens
United case.
Congress
allows for various types of organizations to organize as nonprofit,
revenue from which is not subject to corporate federal income tax.
For example, fundamentally charitable or educational nonprofits—such
as churches—are 501c3 organizations, contributions to which are
also tax-deductible by the donors.
Some
groups are 501c5 organizations. These are political action committees
(PACs), which endorse candidates for office and devote their
resources to advancing or defeating certain candidates.
Then
there are 501c4 organizations. These are social welfare
organizations, dedicated to advancing certain issues or viewpoints
they believe promote “the common good and general welfare.” These
nonprofits can devote much of their resources to political activity,
so long as politics is not the group’s “primary purpose.”
It’s
always been assumed that less than 50 percent would be devoted to
pure politicking, but no one knows because the law does not specify.
Also—conveniently—the Tax Code fails to define the term
“political activity.”
On
Nov. 26, the Treasury Department and IRS announced new
regulations “regarding qualification requirements for tax-exemption
as a social welfare organization,” that is, 501c4 organizations.
The IRS then goes on to specify what sorts of activities will
henceforth be regarded as political activity, including, but not
limited to:
- Any message expressing approval/support or disapproval/opposition to any candidate for public office. For example, an ad saying, “Thank Senator Smith for supporting our troops.”
- Within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election, any mention by name of any candidate or showing his picture, even without expressing approval or disapproval.
- Any money given by a 501c4 to a 527 organization, which citizens may give however much of their personal money they want to promote public issues they personally support.
- Voter registration drives.
- Voter guides that inform citizens of where politicians stand on various issues.
- Any event within 60 days of an election at which a candidate makes an appearance.
The
impact of such regulations would be far-reaching. Groups such as the
National Rifle Association and its political affiliate, NRA-ILA, are
501c4 organizations. Imagine if NRA-ILA could not spend much of its
resources discussing issues and legislation, or informing voters of
where candidates stand on gun-rights issues. Now imagine those
restrictions imposed on the major organizations of every public issue
in America.
Less
than four years ago in Citizens
United v. FEC,
the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional provisions of the
McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law that made it a crime for
organizations to speak about candidates within 60 days of a general
election or 30 days of a primary. The Obama administration claimed
the authority to ban even books, if a 600-page book mentioned a
candidate even once on its pages.
The
Court held that these restrictions violated the First Amendment. Yet
these new IRS rules closely track those invalidated provisions.
In
some respects, these restrictions go even further than the ones
struck down by the Court. Previous restrictions only applied to
candidates for federal office. The new IRS rules would also apply to
every candidate for state and local elections. Thus, criticizing your
county dog catcher could land your organization in hot water with the
IRS, even if the dog-catcher election is vitally relevant to the
social-welfare interests of your nonprofit group, such as a group
called Citizens for Safe Dog Catching.
In
our 2010 book The
Blueprint,
we discussed how free speech is the essential lifeblood of public
debate, empowering voters to make a thoughtful and well-considered
choice at the ballot box. We also warned that Obama might create laws
to silence his political opponents, using the same Chicago-style
political tactics he knew from his days as an Illinois politician,
like a couple rough-looking thugs built like brick walls who muscle
their way around your store front to send you a message that you’d
better quiet down if you know what’s good for you and your
business.
The
Supreme Court restored free speech for average citizens in Citizens
United.
Shortly thereafter, President Obama demeaned his high office by
denouncing the Supreme Court to the justices’ faces during the 2010
State of the Union Address on national television before a joint
session of Congress. Obama later promised to find ways to get around
theCitizens
United decision.
That
is what the IRS is doing here, limiting how much groups can speak
about Obama’s policies or promote alternative policies about
healthcare, free markets, traditional values, or national defense.
Obama and his supporters can use the enormous platform of their
public offices to promote whatever they want without limit. If the
president gives a speech, the media will cover it.
But if
a group of citizens wants to pool their resources to express an
opposing viewpoint before an election, that group can lose its
tax-exempt status. Unlike the law struck down in 2010, it will not be
a federal felony.
But
while its bite isn’t as deep, the reach is much broader. It serves
to choke off funding and impair the ability of those groups to
participate in the democratic process.
The
solution to political speech you don’t like is to offer opposing
speech; the cure for bad speech or wrong speech is more speech, not
less. That free exchange of ideas is the blood flowing through the
veins of a free society, so that voters can fully hear both sides.
When you stop that flow, you stop the beating heart of democracy.
Ken
Blackwell is the former Ohio secretary of state, and Ken Klukowski is
senior legal analyst for Breitbart News. They are the
national-bestselling authors of The
Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an
Imperial Presidency.
My comments: Obama and the Secular Humanists who support him want to suppress all opposition to their godless, Secular Humanist Religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment