Secret Campaign Giving and Abusing the Tax Law
The two big stories of this campaign season are voter backlash against Democrats and the rise of the so-called Super PACs– massive campaign funding organizations that use the tax law to protect the anonymity of their donors. These money laundries, organized as 501(c)(4) groups under the Internal Revenue Code, violate the spirit of the tax laws and may well violate the letter of the law as well. But they are getting a pass from the Internal Revenue Service.
The biggest and best known is Crossroads Grassroots Political Strategies, organized by GOP strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie. Grassroots says it aims to raise an unprecedented $65 million in this year’s election cycle—nearly all of it anonymous. But the concept is not new.
It was first used by Democrats in the 1990s and this year supporters of both parties have created scores of these outfits. This year’s Supreme Court decision in the Citizen’s United case made these organizations even more attractive by opening the door to unlimited giving by businesses and unions.
The tax law is relatively clear about what a (c)(4) can and cannot do. The IRS defines these groups as “civic leagues, social welfare organizations, and local associations of employees.” Their net earnings are supposed to be used for charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. They may lobby and participate in political activities (unlike 501 (c)(3s) but campaigning must not be the group’s primary purpose.
It is, of course, absurd to suggest that the main purpose of these groups is anything other than political activity. Indeed, they effectively function as arms of the Democratic and Republican parties. The biggest, such as Rove’s group, give 100 percent of their contributions to one party or the other.
What could the IRS do about it? According to Ohio State tax professor Donald Tobin, quite a lot actually. (Thanks to the TaxProf blog for posting this). It could subject the donors to the gift tax. It could reclassify these groups as Sec. 527 organizations, which would require them to name their sugar daddies. It could sanction the lawyers who give the green-light to these outfits. Another option: The IRS could sanction the SuperPACs groups themselves and make them pay tax on those funds they improperly contribute to campaigns.
So why doesn’t the IRS act? There are lots of reasons. These groups are a political hot potato. The agency is chronically short-staffed and cracking down on them would produce relatively little revenue. Besides, the new (c)(4)s won’t even have to file their first returns until at least January 2012, so the agency today knows little about them. Most important, perhaps, it is not the IRS’ job to enforce campaign finance laws. That is supposed to be the role of the Federal Elections Commission, an agency carefully organized to be entirely ineffective.
In the end, this is a problem for Congress, not the IRS. The tax exemption is a valuable tool for these political fronts. They should be made to pay for the privilege by either refraining from campaign activity or disclosing their donors. If they won’t, Congress should take away their special tax treatment.
CORRECTION: As one of our commenters noted, these groups are not Super PACs.
[...] On one hand, it has been under pressure to crack down on what some see as abuses (I wrote a Tax Vox blog urging the agency to act back in 2010). Yet, when it tried, it was rightly accused of political [...]
JS
[...] On one hand, it has been under pressure to crack down on what some see as abuses (I wrote a Tax Vox blogurging the agency to act back in 2010). Yet, when it tried, it was rightly accused of political [...]
[...] On one hand, it has been under pressure to crack down on what some see as abuses (I wrote a Tax Vox blog urging the agency to act back in 2010). Yet, when it tried, it was rightly accused of political [...]
[...] On one hand, it has been under pressure to crack down on what some see as abuses (I wrote a Tax Vox blog urging the agency to act back in 2010). Yet, when it tried, it was rightly accused of political [...]
[...] digit hand, it has been low push to fissure downbound on what whatever wager as abuses (I wrote a Tax Vox blog urging the authority to behave backwards in 2010). Yet, when it tried, it was justifiedly accused [...]
[...] digit hand, it has been low push to fissure downbound on what whatever wager as abuses (I wrote a Tax Vox blog urging the authority to behave backwards in 2010). Yet, when it tried, it was justifiedly accused [...]
[...] [...]
[...] about porous laws governing political groups and weak IRS enforcement of those laws. In a 2010 blog post, Gleckman called politically focused 501(c)(4) groups “money laundries” that “violate the [...]
[...] I wrote in a blog post back in 2010, the tax law is relatively clear about what a (c)(4) can and cannot do. The IRS [...]
[...] I wrote in a blog post back in 2010, the tax law is relatively clear about what a (c)(4) can and cannot do. The IRS [...]
Your blog is fantastic and your thought of advice is very good.
Good job and thanks for great article.
Thanks to this great article extruded to my knowledge.
Thanks for sharing. Good job.
Might I simply say nice to read a relief to find somebody who definitely understands exactly what they may be discussing on the internet. You actually get experience to bring a problem to light and enable it to be important. Even more people should study it and understand it all side of the story. I cant believe you are not more popular because you clearly have the gift.
Don’t you publish some writings which critise you? You didn’t publish my critics upon your blog.
The only way Congress will revoke their special tax treatment is in a lame duck session, unless the Democrats retain the House (which is more likely than is reported, since retention is not newsworthy until it happens). Of course, if Congress does stay in Democratic hands next week, expect hearings on this issue under the lesson of “never wound a king.”