House Spending Bill Includes Campaign Finance Deregulation

[Edge-]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nestled...ion-1504965600

WASHINGTON—House Republicans are backing several provisions that could reshape campaign-finance rules ahead of next year’s midterm elections as spending negotiations continue this fall.

The measures are included in a GOP package of spending bills being debated in the House. While the House package is unlikely to advance in the Senate, its provisions could become bargaining chips in the negotiations leading up to the next government-funding deadline, now Dec. 8.

Under one deregulatory measure in the spending package, churches may be able to contribute to candidates without fear of losing their tax-exempt status, furthering President Donald Trump’s promise to “get rid of and totally destroy” a law that forbids such activity.

Corporations also would be able to ask their employees to donate to unlimited numbers of trade associations’ political-action groups instead of limiting employee solicitations to one group per year.

Other measures included in the bill would continue to prevent the Internal Revenue Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission from implementing rules that would affect political activities of 501(C)(4) nonprofits and publicly traded corporations, respectively.

And the government would still be prohibited from requiring federal contractors to disclose their political contributions and campaign expenditures.

The multiple provisions—called riders—are prompting pushback from campaign-finance watchdogs, who generally favor tighter restrictions on money in politics. The provisions have been sought by religious or business groups, who have argued they are otherwise hamstrung from fully participating in the political process.

Riders are frequently inserted into appropriation bills as a way to pass controversial policies without having them voted on individually, because they would “ride along” with a larger spending bill.

It is unclear which House members inserted the language into the bill, which was drafted by the Republican majority. House Democrats tried to strike many of the provisions but didn’t succeed. The House is expected to debate and possibly vote on a package of spending bills that includes the riders as early as this week.

On Friday, the House passed a bill to fund the government until Dec. 8. Lawmakers hope to pass a longer-term spending bill in December.

“It’s as many riders as has been done in this area. Probably the most,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of the group Democracy 21 and an architect of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance overhaul bill. His concern, he said, is that the riders would enable “secret money” to “flow into elections.”

On Thursday, Democracy 21 and about 20 other organizations sent a letter to House members asking them to oppose the riders.

The religious rider would allow churches to skirt the so-called Johnson Amendment. Named after its primary sponsor when he was senator, the late Lyndon Johnson, the 1954 rule prohibits 501(C)(3) nonprofit organizations—such as churches—from endorsing or opposing political candidates. While the IRS has rarely enforced the ban, the rider could give violators a free pass.

The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, is lobbying to repeal the Johnson Amendment and has worked with House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R., La.) to introduce a bill that would do so, according to its website.

“A nonprofit organization should not lose its tax-exempt status or be threatened with audits because it exercises its constitutional right to speak in favor of political candidates who share the organization’s values and mission,” the group argues.

The group didn’t return a request for comment. A spokesman for Mr. Scalise, who was shot at a congressional baseball practice in June and has been in rehabilitation ever since, said his bill would prevent “unelected IRS bureaucrats from stifling the free speech of religious leaders and others under the auspices of the Johnson Amendment.”

Another provision would continue to prevent the IRS from implementing a long-stalled rule that would better define the limits on political activities of organizations exempt from income taxes under section 501(C)(4) of the tax code. By law, such organizations are supposed to be “operated exclusively” for social-welfare purposes, but the IRS has interpreted the law to allow them to spend as much as 49% of their money on political causes.

Campaign-finance watchdogs like Mr. Wertheimer have pushed the IRS for years to limit its definition of social-welfare spending to eschew political expenditures. The long-running issue gained public notice in 2013, when the IRS apologized for targeting 501(c)(4) applications by tea-party and other conservative groups for closer scrutiny. The IRS subsequently proposed a rule aimed at clarifying limits on political activity by such groups. But many GOP lawmakers—as well as a range of advocacy groups—raised concerns, leading to the congressionally imposed moratorium.

The rider on the rule over disclosure of political spending by corporations wouldn’t allow the SEC to “study, develop, propose, finalize, issue, or implement” the rule-making during the government’s next fiscal year, a stronger prohibition than under existing law.

Business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have opposed greater disclosure of political activity. They have argued to the SEC that forcing businesses to disclose political giving would hurt companies and their stockholders by “burdening, and in some cases preventing, corporations’ participation in the political process.”

Welp, the House seems pretty intent on keeping the swamp as full as possible.

We need campaign finance reform like whoa, and this is the exact opposite of what needs to happen. This proposed deregulation sure seems pretty damn swampy.

[Breccia]

The idea of letting a church, separated by Church and State to be tax exempt, funneling money into a political campaign, for which its donors get tax deductions, might sound unConstitutional to some people. Thing is, the law -- yes a law, not an E.O. so Trump can't undo it solo -- that prohibits such, aims at nonprofits in general, not just churches. So it's not technically Church and State.

Removing it requires the Senate and I don't believe the nuclear option is okay here. Could be wrong. But this sounds like Trump is desperate to bolster his sagging numbers and is basically arranging another prayer circle where church leaders touch him and are healed. Except, with money.

[Grapemask]

It's weird how 99.9% of the country is screaming "get money out of politics," and Republicans in Congress are like "let's put even more money in politics!" Republicans keeping up the trend of listening to absolutely none of their voters.

[Gestopft]

It's weird how 99.9% of the country is screaming "get money out of politics," and Republicans in Congress are like "let's put even more money in politics!" Republicans keeping up the trend of listening to absolutely none of their voters.

But they couldn't possibly vote for Democrats instead because BLM/Antifa/SJW/Safespaces or whatever boogeyman they've conjured up.

[Poopymonster]

Both parties are the same! Something...something buttery males! Benghazi!

Mister Ghazi, might I have some Cheese Pizza delivered to my Gate?

- - - Updated - - -

It's weird how 99.9% of the country is screaming "get all money out of politics," and Republicans in Congress are like "let's put even more of our money in politics!" Republicans keeping up the trend of listening to absolutely none of their voters.

FTFY

/10brazilliondollardonation.

[RampageBW1]

That swamp don't drain so good.

[Dontrike]

I have actually seen a swamp drained and it almost seems like walking across the street compared to our government trying to do the same, or better known as "How to do the complete opposite and piss off people", but hey why would Trump and the House try and drain the swamp when they could potentially gain so much from this.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I have a proposal in case anyone sane comes into office in the forseeable future: How about a bill that prevents tagging unrelated shit into other bills? Extra points if they manage to get it to pass by including it in another unlreated bill about some freebies, for that little bit of extra irony.

[Mayhem]

The fight fire with fire approach really only works with fire.

[ati87]

I have a proposal in case anyone sane comes into office in the forseeable future: How about a bill that prevents tagging unrelated shit into other bills? Extra points if they manage to get it to pass by including it in another unlreated bill about some freebies, for that little bit of extra irony.

In some ways the tagging isn't the problem if done by a honest group of people, stuff you really want to pass and you sincerely believe that's the right thing are often tagged to larger must pass bills.

For example the aid package are tagged to spending bills to avoid some bunch of some random ''conservative'' asshole like Ted Cruz openly and aggressively trying to take out. Sure they may not like the spending bill and vote against it but event he likes of Ted Cruz ,when the disaster isn't in Texas, won't overreach and try to take a bill like that out by any means.

Problem lies when a certain group of people (Right-wingers) try to pull shit like this when they add controversial things to must pass laws

[Moshots]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nestled...ion-1504965600



Welp, the House seems pretty intent on keeping the swamp as full as possible.

We need campaign finance reform like whoa, and this is the exact opposite of what needs to happen. This proposed deregulation sure seems pretty damn swampy.

I mean the democrats spent 2x more on hillary than Trump spent. and still lost... Allowing churches and conservative non profits to promote a candidate isn't gonna change the 300 Million more than hillary spent than trump... and that every democrat candidate has always spent Obama spent 800 Million to McCains 300 Million when he won.... Maybe it will just even the playing field a bit.. Not everyone can get Millions in arab oil money through their foundation.

http://metrocosm.com/2016-election-spending/

Or maybe we could just stop all the Bank backed billionaires from donating hundreds of millions to Democrats every election and have that even the playing field.

[Acidbaron]

I mean the democrats spent 2x more on hillary than Trump spent. and still lost... Allowing churches and conservative non profits to promote a candidate isn't gonna change the 300 Million more than hillary spent than trump... and that every democrat candidate has always spent Obama spent 800 Million to McCains 300 Million when he won.... Maybe it will just even the playing field a bit.. Not everyone can get Millions in arab oil money through their foundation.

http://metrocosm.com/2016-election-spending/

Or maybe we could just stop all the Bank backed billionaires from donating hundreds of millions to Democrats every election and have that even the playing field.

"Hey i'm being screwed over, but i know what will make me feel better let's put on blinders and look at the other side exclusively!"

Also know as, how far one has to go to still justify the current administration.

[Edge-]

Or maybe we could just stop all the Bank backed billionaires from donating hundreds of millions

See, it would have been really easy just to agree that this kind of stuff is bullshit and we could have all nicely high-fived because we agree on an issue.

But for some reason you decided to make this about Hillary because why the fuck not make everything about Hillary?

[Moshots]

See, it would have been really easy just to agree that this kind of stuff is bullshit and we could have all nicely high-fived because we agree on an issue.

But for some reason you decided to make this about Hillary because why the fuck not make everything about Hillary?

its not all about her I just raised that she had 2x more than trump upon reading that article thought obama had even more so its more widespread.

Obama spend 200 Million more both times he ran than Hillary so its not all hillary but the fact is over the last 3 elections Democrats has spent 2.3 BILLION and the republicans like 1.2 Billion... Both are outrageous and both need regulation... I'm not for removing the regulations on stopping churches but only if they also find a way to cut down how the dem's are racking in 2x more money.

Set a cap of like 300 million each.

[Mayhem]

I mean the democrats spent 2x more on hillary than Trump spent.

What? Trump spent money on hillary? To the news!!

[Cosmic Janitor]

Problem lies when a certain group of people (Right-wingers) try to pull shit like this when they add controversial things to must pass laws

You know a system is broken when you have a 50/50 chance of it's parts turning out for better or worse. This is one of the cases were standing by your principles is the only real way forward, because having a corrupt and/or broken system just so you can exploit it every now and then yourself for good is not a decent solution.

[PC2]

Good. Candidates can propose ideas that are bad for the economy and organizations. This gives freedom to fight against harmful campaigns.

As usual the violation to look out for is quid pro quo.

[Mayhem]

That's not true, at some point by fighting a swamp with more water you flood it entirely and the land is erroded fully and taken away by the sea/river. Which is an apt analogy, at some point your political system is so corrupt that the only option is to drown it.

Uhm, yeah, the fight fire with fire is to stop the fire from burning even more land, your approach is to just got rid of the land altogether, so it's not the same thing.

You're basically saying drown the political system in money to the point it is swept away by it, but then you are left without a political system at all, don't know how that'll make things better.

[Mayhem]

Good. Candidates can propose ideas that are bad for the economy and organizations. This gives freedom to fight against harmful campaigns.

As usual the violation to look out for is quid pro quo.

I think your code is borked. Can anyone translate to me what this bot is trying to tell us?

- - - Updated - - -

It was sarcasm. Read my edit on what the Italians did (it did not work, but the principle was still solid).

Sarcasm sometimes is hard to detect on these boards. sorry

[PC2]

I think your code is borked. Can anyone translate to me what this bot is trying to tell us?

Is everyone who disagrees with you a bot?

Bottom line here is that speech and money is free expression. A candidate can propose whatever they want. Other stakeholders are free to support or oppose the campaign.