Americans for Job Security Has Failed to File Three Years’ Worth of Mandatory Tax Returns

Date
Body

Today, CLC and Issue One called on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to enforce penalties against Americans for Job Security — one of the top spenders of political “dark money” in recent years — for failing to file three years’ worth of mandatory tax returns. For this, Americans for Job Security could be punished with the loss of its tax-exempt status as well as monetary fines.

A tax-exempt business league under Section 501(c)(6) of the tax code, Americans for Job Security has spent more than $20 million on political ads that overtly called for the election or defeat of federal candidates since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in 2010.

“There must be meaningful consequences for groups that attempt to leave the public in the dark," said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform program at the Campaign Legal Center. "Americans for Job Security has long deprived the public of information about the sources of its funding as it spent tens of millions of dollars influencing elections, and for the past three years, it has been evading the minimal transparency requirements associated with its tax-exempt status.”

For its part, Americans for Job Security has not filed a mandatory tax return since September 15, 2015 — a filing that detailed the organization’s receipts and expenditures between November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014, along with other information.

This means that Americans for Job Security’s tax return for its fiscal year that ended October 31, 2015, is currently at least 566 days late. Its tax return for its fiscal year that ended October 31, 2016, is currently at least 201 days late. And three weeks ago, Americans for Job Security appears to have missed the deadline for filing its tax return for its fiscal year that ended October 31, 2017.

The Internal Revenue Code clearly states that organizations that do not file a tax return for three consecutive years will automatically lose their tax-exempt status. Americans for Job Security could also be fined thousands of dollars — if not tens of thousands of dollars — by the IRS.

Founded in 1997, Americans for Job Security was among the earliest political “dark money” groups — so-called because they do not publicly disclose their donors, unlike political action committees, super PACs, candidates and parties, which do.

In July 2016, the Federal Election Commission fined Americans for Job Security $43,000 after the agency concluded that the group should have disclosed a nonprofit known as the Center to Protect Patient Rights, then associated with the political network of billionaires Charles and David Koch, as a donor behind some of its political expenditures in 2010.

In addition to its own political spending, Americans for Job Security also played a prominent role in funneling tens of millions of dollars to two ballot measure fights in California during the 2012 election — part of a scheme that the California Fair Political Practices Commission later concluded was designed to hide the identities of the actual donors supporting the ballot measure efforts.

The new complaint from Issue One and the Campaign Legal Center is available online here.

CLC Complaint Alleges John Bolton Super PAC’s Connection to Cambridge Analytica Resulted in Campaign Finance Violations

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that the John Bolton Super PAC’s work with Cambridge Analytica resulted in unlawful coordinated communications during the 2014 election cycle. 

In the 2014 elections, Cambridge Analytica provided services to the John Bolton Super PAC, the North Carolina Republican Party, and Thom Tillis’ campaign. Although Cambridge Analytica is supposed to separate its work for campaigns from its work for super PACs, evidence indicates that this didn’t happen—and that Cambridge Analytica acted as a conduit to funnel strategic information to the John Bolton Super PAC – which then spent $1.4 million on ads supporting Tillis’ U.S. Senate candidacy.

As a result, the John Bolton Super PAC made excessive and unreported contributions, in violation of the reporting requirements and contribution limits required by law, and in violation of its status as an independent expenditure-only super PAC.

“It is important that the FEC investigate this violation and enforce the law so that the voices of everyday voters are not drowned out by billionaires,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform program at CLC. “This apparent violation fits into a pattern where the use of Cambridge Analytica as a vendor seems to be a condition of billionaire megadonor Robert Mercer’s support of a candidate. Cambridge Analytica has been used in both the U.S. and U.K. to unlawfully coordinate political entities in order to evade campaign finance limits.”

Cambridge Analytica’s primary owner, Mercer, was also the John Bolton Super PAC’s single largest funder. Details in the complaint show how the John Bolton super PAC unlawfully used strategic information that Cambridge Analytica derived from its work for the party or campaign to develop advertisements expressly advocating for Tillis’ election. Among other things, a Cambridge Analytica employee boasted on his online portfolio about the company’s role in “helping Thom Tillis' successful senatorial campaign create highly targeted advertising,” and as a sample of that work, posted a John Bolton Super PAC video ad expressly advocating for Tillis’ election. After a reporter asked questions about this, the employee altered the page.

Addition of Citizenship Question Compromises the Fairness and Accuracy of Census

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Last night, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross directed the U.S. Census Bureau to add a question about citizenship to the Census. This question is untested and intrusive, and will raise concerns in households about the confidentiality of their personal information. It will undermine the Census’ central purpose of conducting an accurate enumeration. Immigrant communities, documented and undocumented, that fear being targeted by the administration will be undercounted.

“The decision to add a citizenship question is purely political, and could have a destructive effect on the accuracy of the data we rely on to structure our democracy,” said Danielle Lang, senior legal counsel, voting rights and redistricting, at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “It is the Census Bureau’s constitutional responsibility to conduct a fair and accurate count of every person living in the United States. Americans deserve fair representation based on accurate Census data, but this will not happen if the Census is marred by significant undercounting.”

There has been bipartisan opposition to the Justice Department’s request for the question, including 60 members of Congress, 161 Democratic and Republican mayors, six former census directors who served in Republican and Democratic administrations and 19 attorneys general.

CLC filed two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Department of Justice and U.S. Census Bureau seeking more information on how the Census Bureau arrived at its decision to act on DOJ’s recommendation. The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ has refused to provide any information about how it reached the decision to make this request.

Additionally, on January 18, CLC signed a letter to Secretary Ross expressing legal concerns about the leadership of the Census Bureau.

Complaint: Mississippi Senate Candidate Chris McDaniel Engaged in Brazen Coordination with Mercer-Backed Super PAC ‘Remember Mississippi’

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that Remember Mississippi, a super PAC funded by national GOP megadonors Robert Mercer and Richard Uihlein, illegally made contributions to Mississippi U.S. Senate candidate Chris McDaniel. Among other things, the Remember Mississippi super PAC, which was formed by McDaniel’s assistant, took the unprecedented step of organizing, funding and advertising three McDaniel campaign events, which included speeches expressly advocating for McDaniel’s election in front of a “McDaniel U.S. Senate 2018” backdrop.

“We’ve never seen a super PAC take the brazen step of organizing and funding straight up campaign events for the candidate they are supporting,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at CLC. “Thanks to the FEC’s ineffective enforcement of the law, super PACs and campaigns have increasingly found ways to work closely with one another, but it appears this Mercer-backed super PAC went too far. If it wants candidates to take campaign laws seriously, the FEC must investigate and punish violators for wrongdoing.”

The super PAC paid for McDaniel campaign events, advertised for them, and promoted his candidacy at them. McDaniel’s personal assistant at his law firm, Susan Perkins, organized the group and became its treasurer, while also managing the McDaniels’ campaign Facebook page.

“Super PACs are categorically prohibited from making contributions to candidates,” said Adav Noti, senior director, trial litigation at CLC, and former associate general counsel for policy at the FEC. “The FEC should strip Remember Mississippi of its status as a super PAC, which appears to have been obtained under false pretenses, and impose major fines to deter others from violating this bright-line rule in the future."

Remember Mississippi received $1 million from Mercer and Uihlein. McDaniel acknowledged publicly his relationship to the super PAC’s financiers, saying “the Mercers and other donors have pledged more than $1 million” to support his candidacy, and emphasized that “I’ve known the Mercers since 2013, and we’ve talked a good deal about 2018.”

Deon v. Barasch

At a Glance

Deon v. Barasch is a challenge to a Pennsylvania law that prohibits campaign contributions by key individuals involved in the state gaming industry. 

Status
Closed
Updated
About This Case/Action

Deon v. Barasch is a challenge to a Pennsylvania law that prohibits campaign contributions by key individuals involved in the state gaming industry.  

When the Pennsylvania legislature legalized certain forms of gambling, it understood that the industry would require careful oversight to prevent corruption, or the appearance of corruption, from taking root in the Commonwealth. The General Assembly looked at the experience of other states and determined that its corruption concerns could be assuaged by prohibiting state gaming licensees and prospective licensees – including casino owners and highly placed employees – from making campaign contributions.

Two Pennsylvania casino owners covered by the contribution ban are now challenging the law as a violation of their federal constitutional rights under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. CLC, joined by Common Cause, has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Pennsylvania’s efforts to prevent the corruption that would inevitably arise if gaming licensees could freely deploy campaign contributions to “stack the deck” in their favor.

As CLC’s brief points out, courts have long allowed laws that limit or ban campaign contributions from those who do business with the government, based on the clear risk that someone seeking a lucrative state contract or license might pay for that privilege, i.e., might “pay to play.” Laws like Pennsylvania’s are widely recognized as a constitutional means of preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption in highly regulated industries, and thus to preserve the public’s faith in their government.

What’s at stake

If plaintiffs prevail, gaming licensees – who hold what are effectively state-sponsored monopoly licenses in a multibillion-dollar industry with a notoriously checkered past and obvious vulnerabilities – would be able to buy into electoral campaigns in a way that poses too high a risk of corruption. Enforcing strict barriers between campaign contributions and gaming interests prevents industry participants from being forced to ante up for the privilege of obtaining or keeping a license, which preserves the integrity of the state gaming system overall, as well as the taxpayers’ investment in it.

As CLC’s brief notes, many other states and localities have similar anticorruption laws that could go bust if the plaintiffs’ challenge succeeds. These laws, like Pennsylvania’s, are vitally needed to prevent corruption and maintain public faith in government. Striking them down would be a bad bet.

Plaintiffs

Pasaquale Deon

Defendant

David Barash