Nonprofits and Campaign Activity

Today's New York Times has an article about Senate Democrats requesting that the IRS begin to investigate whether nonprofit groups under the 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) tax status are following the law. Recall that these groups' primary purpose may not be campaign activity.

Pastors Defy Tax Code

We talked in class on Friday about the different ways independent groups get involved in campaigns. Non-profit, tax exempt groups are allowed to get involved with campaigns, but only to the extent that they do not endorse candidates. On the other hand, they can get involved with nonpartisan activity, such as holding candidate forums, educating voters, and registering voters. These groups fall under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS tax code, and as such, they receive tax exempt status. This means that these groups do not have to pay taxes on their income. The most obvious example of a 501(c)(3) organization is a church. Indeed, according to a recent ABC News article located here, a number of pastors plan to get involved in partisan politics this year. In fact, these churches will be sending copies of their partisan sermons to the IRS in the hopes that the IRS will investigate them.

Why do they want to be investigated? The churches see an investigation as an opportunity to file a federal lawsuit against the IRS which prevents them from engaging in partisan activity. They feel that the courts, rather than having the law overturned by Congress, is a venue where they are likely to be more successful. The opposite view is that churches are free to give up their tax exempt status if they wish to engage in partisan activity. Regardless of what position you take on the issue, this shows that churches, like business groups, labor unions, candidates, and parties, are all planning to get involved with this year's election.

Americans for Job Security

The New York Times has a timely article (given our reading this week) on Americans for Job Security, a tax-exempt 501(c)(6) business organization. The article is here. Take a look at the graphics and video clips associated with the article.

Parties and Interests Go on the Offensive

One of my favorite things about campaigns is TV advertising. While we will not be discussing advertising in class for another few weeks, TV ads are the most direct way to relate the reading to real world political examples. Herrnson Chapter 4 describes the three types of campaigns that parties can conduct to assist candidates: independent, parallel, and coordinated campaigns.

One feature of independent campaigns, or independent expenditures, is that they often employ a different tone because by law, they must not coordinate with the candidates or the rest of the party. Here is an example of an independent expenditure TV ad paid for by the Republican Party in 2006: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgSZyZDvbtY&feature=related

Here is an example of a TV advertisement paid for by Citizens for the Republic, a 501(c)(4) organization:http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/09/23/group-updates-iconic-reagan-ad/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Washington+Wire%29

While these are just two examples, we will talk more in depth in a few weeks about why and how television ads work.

UPDATE:

Here are two articles that discuss the sometimes confusing world of campaign finance:
The first, from the Columbia Journalism Review: NYT on the ABC’s of 501(c)s
and the second, from the New York Times, referring to the recent Citizens United Supreme Court case:
Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit.
Finally, a summary from electionlawblog.org, on the Disclose Act, the legislative response by those unhappy with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case: http://electionlawblog.org/archives/DISCLOSE%20Act_Sec-by-Sec.pdf

Yesterday's Lecture

Now posted here. See you all in class tomorrow.

Republicans Begin to Consider Challenging Obama

If you followed politics any this weekend, you probably noticed that a number of 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls were at events in Iowa (the Ronald Reagan Dinner) and in Washington, DC (the Values Voter summit) in order to determine whether they should run for the party's nomination. This is indicative of two topics we covered thus far in class. First, the 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls are attempting to determine where to position themselves ideologically to win the party's nomination, a task for them that is becoming increasingly difficult given the recent Tea Party success within the party. Second, it indicates that the candidates are considering factors about the decision to run that we discussed in class on Friday and will continue to discuss in class on Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/us/politics/18repubs.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Delaware: It's Not Just for Tax-Free Shopping Anymore

What the heck is going on in Delaware?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/14/AR2010091407063.html?hpid=topnews

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/the-morning-after-whose-party-is-it/

Last night, unknown perennial candidate Christine O'Donnell defeated Representative Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate. This is notable because O'Donnell was under attack from Castle and the Delaware Republican Party, and because Castle served two terms as the state's governor and multiple terms in the House of Representatives. But what do last night's results from Delaware mean?

If you read the articles closely, you should be able to pick up on two themes articulated by the media about what the election means. First, the media is arguing that the election indicates strength of the Tea Party movement, signaling that conservative activists in Delaware (and nationally) preferred O'Donnell over the more moderate Castle. Rep. Castle was one of the more moderate Republicans in the House, which makes sense, given that John McCain only received 37% of the vote in Delaware in 2008. This argument basically states that the election was about ideology, that Castle was far too moderate for voters and Tea Party activists who were a considerable portion of the Delaware Republican primary electorate. If the election was about ideology, and O'Donnell defeated Castle, what can we say about the candidates' relationships to the Median Voter in the Delaware Republican primary? The articles also hint that O'Donnell's victory means that the election is likely to lean toward the Democratic candidate - what does this imply for the candidates' relationships to the Median Voter of Delaware's general election voters?

Second, the articles also discuss an "anti-establishment" and "anti-Washington" element to the election results. This should not be confused with an interpretation of the election based on ideology. Instead, this interpretation argues that poor government performance - on issues like the economy, the War in Afghanistan, the Gulf oil spill, etc. - is causing voters to reject Washington incumbents.

These arguments are different - one is arguing that the election was about ideology, and the other arguing that the election is about poor government performance. Which do you think best describes the relationship between the Tea Party, the Republican Party, and current defeats of Republican incumbents in primaries?

UPDATE:

The consequences of this primary for the general election campaign are clear, according to a new poll by Public Policy Polling:

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/09/coons-up-big.html

Papers

Hi all-

As promised, on Monday I will discuss in detail my expectations for the research paper. Here is a link where you can find a document on the research paper.

I hope you had a great weekend and see you in class on Monday!

UPDATE:

A newer version of the paper instructions is available here.

Lecture available

Hi all-

I've made last Wednesday's slides available here.

Here's a few ads to take a look at:

What party is this candidate?

Roy Blunt (R-MO) for U.S. Senate on Taxes and the Economy

See you all in class.

-Chris

For Next Week

It was good to see you all again yesterday. I have two items for you:

Campaigns in the United States are candidate-centered. Here is the example I was going to show you in class.

Bobby Bright for Congress: Independence

Congressman Bright is clearly running for re-election by running against his own party. The same is true in the next example:

Obama-Terry Voter?

Lee Terry was an incumbent Republican congressman from Omaha, Nebraska, but thought it advantageous to tie his fortunes to Barack Obama's.

For Monday, don't forget to read Johnston on Party Identification and for Wednesday read the Shepsle article.

Remember, class is cancelled for this Friday, September 3.

I'll make the slides available shortly.