Courts & Law

The real IRS Scandal: Legal challenge to 1959 IRS regulation re: 501(c)(4) tax exempt status

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It looks as if MSNBC host of the The Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell, tax analyst David Cay Johnston (and I) finally have the attention of someone in Congress about The real IRS scandal: the ease with which political organizations have been abusing the 501(c)(4) tax exempt status.

Paul Blumenthal writes at the Huffington Post, Chris Van Hollen: IRS Rules To Be Challenged In Court:

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Tuesday that he and two campaign
finance watchdog groups would sue the IRS, challenging regulations that
allow nonprofit groups to be involved in politics if they're "primarily"
devoted to a social welfare purpose.

Van Hollen said he and watchdog groups Campaign Legal Center and
Democracy 21 would sue to clarify an IRS regulation that he said was at
odds with the law, which requires certain groups to "exclusively" engage
in social welfare to earn nonprofit status. The IRS regulation
permitting groups “primarily” engaged in social welfare allows the
organizations to participate in an undefined amount of political
activity, said the congressman, a leading advocate of campaign finance
reform and ranking member of the House Budget Committee.

The 1959 IRS regulation has become an issue since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door for nonprofit groups organized under section 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) of the tax code to raise and spend corporate and union money on elections without disclosing donors. The scandal involving the agency's singling out conservative groups applying for nonprofit status has increased attention to the regulation, especially among Democratic lawmakers.

The GOP war on women to appease the crazy base

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

TalibanRemember when the TanMan, Weeper of the House John Boehner, proclaimed that Tea-Publicans were all about creating jobs? Yeah, still waiting.

When they are not wasting time on meaningless symbolic votes to repeal "ObamaCare" for the 39th time to give every member of their caucus a chance to vote against it, they are wasting their time on other meaningless symbolic votes to appease the crazy base, like this.

On Tuesday, House Republicans wasted the day approving the most restrictive
anti-abortion bill considered in Congress in the last decade, the unconstitutional 20-week abortion ban bill sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. U.S.
House passes bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of
pregnancy:

The House approved legislation Tuesday that would ban abortions starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy, the most sweeping abortion restriction to pass any chamber of Congress in a decade. The vote was 228 to 196.

For those of you scoring this bill, six Republicans voted against it, and six Democrats voted for it — Henry Cuellar (D-TX 28), Daniel Lipinski (D-IL 3), Jim Matheson (D-UT 4), Mike McIntyre (D-NC 7), Collin Peterson (D-MN 7), and Nick Rahall (D-WV 3) — canceling each other out.

Under the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, abortions
can be performed until the point when an individual doctor determines a
fetus’s viability, which is generally defined as up to 24 weeks of
gestation. After that point, the government can prohibit the procedure
as long as it provides sufficient safeguards for the mother’s health and
well-being.

* * *

Tuesday’s vote marks the first time Congress has voted to redefine the point where a fetus becomes viable [in a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the real reason for doing this.]

Governor Brewer signs Medicaid (AHCCCS) restoration into law

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In a signing ceremony this morning, Gov. Brewer signed into law Arizona’s Medicaid restoration program:

Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law today an expansion of Arizona’s
Medicaid program under the federal health-care overhaul, brought about
through a fierce five-month legislative battle.

Brewer, standing before a riser in a Capitol conference room that
held dozens of lawmakers, hospital officials and other supporters,
thanked the bipartisan coalition of legislators who voted for the bill.

“They displayed something we don’t see a lot in politics today, and
that is courage,” the governor said. “You put people before politics and
you stood firm in the face of personal attacks.”

* * *

“An opportunity like this doesn’t come very often,” the governor said at
today’s signing ceremony. “And I hope less in the future.”

After Brewer signed the legislation into law, she sent out this tweet along with the following picture.

Screenshot from 2013-06-17 14:00:15

Federal voter registration form preempts Arizona’s Prop. 200 proof of citizenship requirement

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Surpeme Court issued five opinions this morning, but one opinion comes from Arizona, the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. challenge to Arizona's Prop. 200 (2004) requirement of proof of citizenship. The federal voter registration form only requires the voter to attest to citizenship status.

In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. that Arizona's proof of citizenship requirement is preempted by the federal law requiring that states use the federal voter registration form. Justices Thomas and Alito both filed dissenting opinions.

Here is a copy of the opinion.
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

Disgraced recalled Senator Russell Pearce and Governor Jan Brewer (who was Secretary of State at the time) are going to have a cow today over the Court's opinion.

I will have more when I have time to read through the 51 page opinion.

UPDATE: Today's win for the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. will be short-lived, because Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion lays out the administrative path for Arizona to follow to have the proof of citizenship requirements of Prop. 200 included in the federal voter registration form, and possible future litigation.

Here are highlights from Justice Scalia's majority opinion:

SCOTUS Watch: Two weeks, 19 opinions

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

And the suspense builds . . .

According to the stats kept by
Scotusblog.com, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard 75 merit cases this
term, and issued opinions in 56 of those cases.

This leaves 19 opinions to be announced over the next two weeks
before the end of June. Mondays are orders and opinions days, and the court has added Thursday opinion days. Unless the court adds an additional opinion day, this leaves four opinion days.

There are several cases I am following for decisions that could be issued on any of these four opinion days. One never knows, the U.S. Supreme Court does not announce opinions in advance, and the court does not leak to the media.

There are two voting rights cases. The first is Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.,
(12-71), which involves the question whether the National Voter
Registration Act preempts Arizona's Prop. 200 (2004) that requires
persons who are registering to vote to show proof of citizenship to
register to vote. The federal law requires only an attestation of
citizenship, subject to prosecution for false attestation. This is a
federal preemption issue.

The "big one" that everyone is waiting for is Shelby County v. Holder, (12-96), which involves the question whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority.