Bob Bauer in his blog, moresoftmoneyhardlaw, plans on commenting on the amicus briefs filed in the Wisconsin Right to Life case. The first one analyzes the brief filed on behalf of Norm Ornstein, Thomas Mann, Anthony Corrado and the Committee on Economic Development. Be sure to check back for comments on the numerous other amicus briefs.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined that the Democratic Leadership Council Inc. (DLC) which previously filed as a 501(c)(4) organization, was not eligible for tax exempt status. The group then filed a lawsuit to seek a reversal of the IRS determination. A hearing was scheduled for last September, but then canceled when lawyers for both parties agreed that the hearing was not necessary. But now the judge has changed his mind and according to BNA Money and Politics ($$) the judge has scheduled oral arguments for April 23. The IRS claimed that the group operated for the benefit of Democratic political candidates, but the DLC argued that it is a "think tank". Partisan political activities may not be the primary purpose of a 501(c)(4). This is an exceptional case because the tax status of an organization involved in politics is being handled in court rather than by the IRS. Lawyers for the DLC said that the groups work is not meant to help Democrats in campaigns and is independent of the Democratic Party.

While the amount of tax money owed by the DLC is relatively small, the case could have significance by shedding light on important issues regarding limits on the activities of groups that have spent millions of dollars on activities related to politics. There has been little guidance in the past about limits on 501(c)(4) groups, like the DLC.

Tomorrow the Senate Rules and Administration Committee will hold a markup hearing on S.223, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. As predicted, ranking member Bob Bennett (R-UT) wants to attach an amendment to the bill that would lift the caps on coordinating spending between party committees and individual campaigns. However, proponents including Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) are urging the passage of a clean bill with no amendments. The Campagin Finance Institute is calling it a "poison pill" that could destroy the bill's chances of being approved. This New York Times editorial weighs in on the "reports of behind-the-scenes attempts to weigh the bill down with enough amendments to sink it."

We urge you to support S.223 so that citizens can have access to financial information about Senate candidates, just like all other federal candidates. Any unrelated amendments should be opposed. The Sunlight Foundation has a petition already prepared for you to sign and send to your Senators asking them to support the bill.

Update March 28: Senate Panel Approves Electronic Filing of Campaign Data The Senate Rules Committee approved by voice vote S.223, with an amendment passing that would make January 1, 2008 the date of enactment. Senator Bob Bob Bennett (R-UT) withdrew his planned amendment.

OMB Watch organized a nonprofit coalition that filed a multi-party amicus brief on behalf of 17 charities (exempt under 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code). The brief argued that the electioneering communications restrictions deny charities the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, which is protected by the First Amendment. The electioneering communication restrictions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) cannot be constitutionally applied to 501(c)(3) charities because such organizations are, and must be to retain their tax-exempt status, nonpartisan and nonpolitical.

Read the amicus brief here.

Meanwhile...

Wisconsin Right To Life (WRTL) filed their brief for the Supreme Court case in which oral argument is scheduled for April 25th. I encourage you to read the analysis from the Scotusblog. Importantly, the brief calls for the creation of "a safe-harbor for grassroots lobbying." Furthermore, the brief asks for the electioneering communications part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission to be overturned, eliminating the need for as-applied challenges. The press release from the James Madison center can be read here. A group of charities, which OMB Watch is a part of, will soon file an amicus brief in the case urging the court to protect the right of nonprofits to broadcast grassroots lobbying communications.

Bob Bauer in his moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com blog points out that the lawyer representing Wisconsin Right To Life (WRTL) has requested an extended brief for a specific reason. Done so in light of the possibility that the "case might bring the electioneering communication prohibitions to constitutional ruin." Bauer divulges that the court's resolve to concentrate on the facts and circumstances of an ad is an important problem. "Under this test, no one can know when speech is protected; and if this leaves things fatally up in the air, the government seems content to leave them there." Here it is interestingly described as a never ending problem, for if the ad simply removed a reference to a candidate there wouldn't be a violation, but without such a reference it would not be eligible for an as applied challenge. The electioneering communications rule is too broad and firm to realize, as Bauer suggests, that the law may fail.

Presidential contendor Mitt Romney has publicly stated that he is opposed to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, calling for its repeal. Romney believes it restricts free speech, and increases an appeal to regulate grassroots organizations. The end of his press releases references the Wisconsin Right To Life case. The blog www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com has an interesting response. From Romney's press release:

Governor Romney believes that McCain-Feingold restricts our First Amendment rights and is bad public policy. He believes we should enact reforms that promote transparency and disclosure, preserve grassroots activism and protect the ability to criticize or endorse current officeholders and candidates.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has concluded that the Progress for America Voter Fund violated campaign finance law by spending more than 30 million on ads and mailings supporting President Bush. The group will pay the FEC $750,000, the largest fine in FEC history. The FEC continues to rely on fines placed on other 527 organizations as a way to clarify what campaign activities 527s are allowed to perform. Read the FEC press release here.