If lawmakers want to make big changes in a way that doesn’t attract too much attention, hiding it in tax code is a great way to do it. This week, conservative members on the House Ways and Means committee introduced H.R.5053 – an amendment to tax code that would prohibit the IRS from requiring that the identity of contributors to 501(c) organizations be included in annual returns.
It sounds boring and innocuous, but if accepted, this change, and others like it on the heels of Citizens United, allow for money for elections to come from unidentified sources, leaving a huge opportunity for influence in U.S. elections.
These donations, also called “dark money”, pose many threats, but one those who support the amendment try to minimize, is the potential for foreign governments and interests to influence U.S. elections. It is illegal for foreigners to contribute to political campaigns, but if there is no paper trail of contributions, who would know?
Current law allows for 501 (c) groups that claim a “social welfare” tax exemption to shield the identity of big donors from the public, but not from the IRS. This work-around, adopted by Republicans and Democrats, has already resulted in a half billion dollars in secretive contributions since 2012.
The excellent, in-depth article “The Conservative Playbook for Keeping ‘Dark Money’ Dark” published by ProPublica earlier this year, detailed how conservative think tanks and other groups, have been coaching state legislators and leaders on how to identify and attack attempts to make political donations more transparent.
“Transparency is for government,” the group reminded conservative activists. “Privacy is for people.”
As the House moves to consider the bill, the plan is fully operational.
Martin Quezada, an Arizona Democratic state senator highlighted in the ProPublica piece has been working toward dark money disclosure legislation because he believes voters have a right to know which candidates are receiving money from special interest groups.
“My bill in no way limits anyone’s free speech. It doesn’t say they can’t spend that money. They’re free to spend that money all they want. It only requires that if you’re going to spend that money, you have to tell us who you are,” Quezada said.
While enforcement through the IRS is less than ideal because of limited effectiveness, it is the only reasonable option.
