Partisan?

Armed on campus. Smith & Wesson PR bonanza.

A wink here....a shrug there....where is the oversight?

No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.

Progressive Discussions

The ultimate oversight for the tax-exempt status of non-profit organizations rests with the IRS. Non-profits are often referred to as "501(c)(3)'s because that's the Section of the US Code under which they are organized. If they are operating in NC, then chances are, they are also organized as a corporation in NC, and not some other state, which gives the Secretary of State some oversight as well - not to their tax exempt status, but to their corporate citizenship (if that's what you want to call it.)

Federal law prevents corporations from using money to influence elections. Most for profit corporations - if they're big enough - form Political Action Committees (PACs) to allow them to donate money to the causes and candidates they wish to support, thereby influencing elections. 501(c)(3)'s, however, are not permitted to form PAC's. A case currently before the supreme court, Federal Election Commisson v. Wisconsin Right to Life, could change this, and change how 501(c)(3)s are permitted to use their funds.

The gist of this case is that the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) ran a series of "issues" ads in 2004, urging voters in that state to call Senators Feingold and Kohl, and ask them not to filibuster President Bush's conservative judicial appointments. It then asked voters to visit WRTL's website for further information. The website was explicit in it's advocating the defeat of Senator Feingold in the election. (Fortunately for progressives everywhere, they were unsuccessful.)

However, the case against WRLT has now made it to the Supreme Court. Even though a final decision hasn't been given, there is no lack of opinion out there. The New York Times said:

The campaign finance system is like an overburdened dam: it holds back a flood of special-interest money, but there is a constant struggle to keep it from springing leaks. The Supreme Court hears arguments today in a case that could determine whether a major new leak opens up, one that would allow corporations and unions to pour unprecedented amounts of money into political campaigns. It is important that the court continue to keep this money out.

and

In last year’s election, the voters clearly showed they are unhappy with the role special interests play in Washington. That frustration has grown with each new scandal involving Congress or the Bush administration. It would be disturbing if the court now changed the rules to make it easier for special interests to corrupt American democracy

The Washington Post urged the Court to look at precedent set only 3 years ago. We all know how that is likely to go.

In deciding this hard case, the court needs to avoid making bad law in any number of ways. It should not require judges to blind themselves to the obvious context in which these ads are run, but neither should it invite open-ended judicial inquiry into the motives of those who want to speak on public issues. If it finds that the ad in this case does not amount to "the functional equivalent of express advocacy" of a candidate's election or defeat, it needs to do so in a way that will not open the floodgates for a new wave of sham ads.

An amicus brief filed by OBM Watch and other charities states:

. . .a distinction must be made since there are specific circumstances for nonprofits, which can not set up a separate PAC to address genuine issue advocacy that occurs at all times. This was stated in an amicus brief OMB Watch filed along with other charities that strongly urges the court to "take the occasion to grant both clarity and relief to section 501(c)(3) organizations."

After listening to the oral arguments, on Wed. 4/25, Rick Hasen at Electionlawblog thought it was possible that Justice Kennedy would be on the more progressive side of the court with this one. In any case, he seems to be the lynch pin in this one.

Could this have a bearing on groups like Civitas? You bet your sweet blue donkey it can. if the restriction is lifted, they won't have to hide their money behind "educational weekends". It will be out and out "electioneering", only it will be legal.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

to this violation (but no video. Sigh.)

I've seen on a comment thread in the past that Undercover Blue has a similar quote from Jack Hawke ending in "Wink. Wink." (UB was not my source for this quote, but he's confirmed the information.)
 
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,