Senate nominee Gabriel Gomez (R-MA)

The super PAC — which will not have to disclose any of its donors until after the June 25 special election to fill the remainder of Secretary of State John Kerry’s Senate term — says it will back “people with a more independent streak who care more about doing what is right, than relying on partisan politics,” and sees Gomez as a “moderate, reasonable candidate.”

But the committee’s treasurer, Nancy H. Watkins of Tampa, FL, is a prominent Republican accounting and compliance expert who has served for former Reps. David Rivera and Rick Renzi (R-AZ), and Bachmann’s unsuccessful 2012 presidential campaign. Her husband, Robert I. Watkins, is assistant treasurer and a Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) appointee and was a major bundler for both the George W. Bush (R) and Mitt Romney (R) presidential campaigns.

More notably, The Hill reported Wednesday, Americans for Progressive Action’s spokeswoman is Sheena Tahilramani. Tahilramani served for several years as chief of staff for Karl Rove’s company and was media liaison for the Republican strategist. She now works as head of marketing and publicity for a consulting firm whose clients include birther Joseph Farah’s WND Books.

In a Senate debate Tuesday, Gomez defended the Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United ruling — which helped allow unlimited spending by outside groups like Americans for Progressive Action and Rove’s Crossroads GPS — as “just free speech.” Despite requests by his opponent, Rep. Ed Markey (D), Gomez has repeatedly refused to sign a “People’s Pledge” to keep outside money out of the race, like the one agreed to by then-Sen. Scott Brown (R) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) in their 2012 race.

State Sen. Jim Peterson (R-MT)

The Billings Gazette reported Monday that State Sen. Jim Peterson (R) and six other Republican legislators are launching a ballot initiative to require secretive outside groups in Montana to disclose who is funding their political advertisements. If the initiative qualifies for the ballot, voters would consider the proposal in 2014.

Gov. Steve Bullock (D) has supported the legislative version of the proposal, also sponsored by Peterson, which passed the state’s Senate on a 29-21 vote. But on a 54 to 46 vote, House Republicans rejected a move to bring the bill to the floor.

Supporters will need to collect 24,175 signatures by next June — that total must include at least 5 percent of the voters in at least 34 of the state’s 100 House districts.

Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied in Albany on Wednesday to urge the New York Senate to enact campaign finance reform legislation, including public financing for state candidates. But while the State Assembly has already passed a reform bill, the Senate’s governing coalition has yet to bring forward a bill with less than a month left in session.

Though Democrats outnumber Republicans in the 63-member New York State Senate, the body is controlled by a coalition of Republicans and the five-member Independent Democrat Conference (IDC). Under their power-sharing agreement, the Republican and IDC leaders jointly decide what legislation comes to the floor.

A stunning number of New York State Senators have, in recent years, been charged with ethical violations. While both the Democratic conference and the IDC have proposed comprehensive campaign finance reform bills, the Republicans have thus far opposed any such efforts. Earlier this month, Republican Leader Dean Skelos actually called the proposals “a recipe for political corruption.”

Charlie Albanetti, communications director for Citizen Action of New York, told ThinkProgress, “The IDC made a commitment when they broke away that they’d use this opportunity to make sure progressive legislation is passed. The Assembly has passed legislation, it’s on the IDC and Republicans to do what the majority of New Yorkers indicated they want and they deserve.”

Photo by John Montgomery

Three-plus years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s corporate money in politics decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the movement to overturn some of its central holdings has not abated. On Tuesday, Los Angeles passed a ballot measure to endorse state and federal amendments overturning the decision, with an overwhelming 76.6 percent in favor of the resolution. The nation’s second-largest city now joins 400 other jurisdictions, including 175 cities and 13 states, in rejecting the notion that corporations are people, and the Supreme Court’s holding that corporate spending will not lead to corruption.

The Los Angeles measure calls on state legislators and regional members of Congress to both propose and support any amendments that would limit parts of both Citizens United v. FEC and an earlier decision striking down campaign finance limits, Buckley v. Valeo. The resolution, Proposition C, asserts that “corporations do not have the constitutional rights of human beings,” “corporations do not engage in constitutionally protected speech when spending corporate money to influence the electoral process,” and limits on political spending that ensure all Americans have an opportunity to be heard are permissible. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear another case that could make it even easier for the wealthy to buy elections.

The Internal Revenue Service is under fire from both parties for improperly targeting certain groups for additional scrutiny because their names included keywords such as “Tea Party” and “patriot.” But the challenge of addressing the skyrocketing numbers of “social welfare” groups registering for tax exempt status could be lessened by fixing the broken disclosure laws for political advertisers.

Since the Supreme Court’s controversial 5 to 4 ruling in the Citizens United v. FEC case in 2010, the IRS has seen a more than 100 percent increase in the number of groups applying for 501(c)(4) status — the section of the federal tax code that governs non-profit groups dedicated to social welfare — from 1,500 in 2010 to 3,400 in 2012.

Not all 501(c)(4) engage in political activity of any kind — the United States Chess Federation, for example, is a fairly apolitical group. Political 501(c)(4) groups are required to adhere to certain rules, including that they not be “primarily engaged” in electioneering activity. In a failed attempt to sort out which groups were apolitical and which needed additional scrutiny, the IRS reportedly tried a variety of ineffective screening methods, including flagging “patriot” groups as well as groups that focused on making “America a better place to live.”

As long as it is not their primary purpose, Citizens United allows (c)(4) groups to spend unlimited funds on “independent expenditure” ads aimed at swaying voters and the deadlocked Federal Election Commission allows these groups to avoid any disclosure of who bankrolls these advertisements. And since the 2002 law governing political advertisements came before the ruling, it does not adequately address the specific issue of disclosure for independent expenditure ads.

Because of this loophole, groups seeking to influence elections through campaign ads groups and to avoid having to make their donors public have often registered as (c)(4)s, rather than as super PACs (tax-exempt groups which can also raise and spend unlimited amounts on “independent expenditures,” but must make public all large donors). After bankrolling super PACs in the 2012 elections, mega-donors including millionaire investor Foster Friess and billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson have vowed to keep future political spending secret, by giving to opaque 501(c)(4) committees instead. And good government groups have demanded the IRS investigate whether (c)(4)s like Crossroads GPS, the Commission on Growth, Hope and Opportunity, and the American Future Fund are really just super PACs in disguise.

The guidelines for what is and is not an acceptable level of political activity for a (c)(4) has never been clear — a vague “primary purpose” test — and has been little enforced. With limited staff and resources, even before massive furloughs forced by the sequester, the IRS has proved ill-equipped to monitor which (c)(4)s are really (c)(4)s and which ones are pretenders.

Congressional Republicans have thus far blocked efforts to require disclosure of political ad spending by (c)(4) groups. The proposed DISCLOSE Act and the Follow the Money Act would help bring parity to the disclosure rules goverrning independent campaign ads, without impeding on the legitimate activity of (c)(4)s. But if groups like Crossroads GPS were required to disclose the major donors behind their $70 million-plus campaign ad spending, there would be little incentive for them to masquerade as social welfare groups.

If Congress simply treated all spending on independent campaign advertisements uniformly — allowing voters to know who was really speaking and to evaluate the speech accordingly — the IRS would not have to use these clearly imperfect tests to decide what is and isn’t a legitimate 501(c)(4).

Note: ThinkProgress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), which has been recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(4) organization. CAPAF does not endorse candidates, nor does it fund “independent expenditures” or any other kind of candidate-related advertising.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) acknowledged Friday that it had improperly flagged groups applying for tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny if they contained common Tea Party keywords in their names. Rather than addressing the real problem of political committees masquerading as 501(c)(4) groups to evade public disclosure laws, this approach instead delayed the process for several groups purely on the basis of their names.

Lois Lerner, head of the IRS unit that oversees tax-exempt groups, noted that the number of 501(c)(4) group applications doubled between 2010 and 2012. As a result of this influx, she explained, low-level workers at the agency’s Cincinnati office had flagged about 300 applications for additional review based on a keyword search. None had their status revoked or denied and the IRS apologized for the mistake.

While it unclear whether the IRS workers intentionally targeted conservative groups — an agency spokesman did not immediately respond to a ThinkProgress request for the complete list of keywords used — the office revealed that two of the terms on the list were “Tea Party” and “patriot.” As such, about 75 Tea Party groups were singled out for additional scrutiny.

The spike in 501(c)(4) groups comes after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision that outside groups may make unlimited political expenditures. Since then, some 501(c)(4) organizations have begun abusing the system. Though groups engaged in some political activity may qualify as “social welfare groups” and receive tax-exempt status under this section of the tax code, electioneering cannot be their predominant activity.

Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, for example, told the IRS that any political ads run by the group would be “limited in amount” and “would not constitute the group’s primary purpose.” Campaign finance reform advocates have argued that, in light of more than $70 million in “independent expenditure” ad spending, the group’s primary purpose is clearly campaign activity. But rather than register with the Federal Election Commission as a political committee, Crossroads GPS continues to claim that it is not such a group and need not publicly identify its funders.

In a joint op/ed Wednesday, the three Republican members of the Federal Election Commission blasted campaign finance reformers and good-government groups for proposing changes to the impotent agency, defending themselves as “fair and impartial” regulators and administrators of campaign finance laws. But this same trio has been responsible for historic deadlock at the Commission and has openly refused to follow the campaign rules enacted by Congress.

FEC Commissioners Caroline Hunter, Donald McGahn II, and Matthew Petersen, all three of whom continue to serve though their terms have expired, wrote that “The agency’s harshest critics disregard the agency’s prime enforcement directive: Enforce the law as it is, not as some wish it to be.” They continue:

Ultimately, charges that the agency “does not enforce the law” ignore the legal parameters set by Congress that have been further limited by the courts. Failure to recognize these constraints would leave political participants at the mercy of unelected bureaucrats, an outcome both Congress and the courts have rejected.

Of course, thanks to these three, the Federal Election Commission has not followed the “legal parameters set by Congress.” Indeed in 2011, McGahn conceded “I’m not enforcing the law as Congress passed it… I plead guilty as charged.” Instead, he argued, he enforced the law based on his own interpretation of what the Supreme Court would want him to do. “In a close call, the tie goes to the speaker, not the regulator… The court has said certain [portions of McCain-Feingold] are unconstitutional.”

But rather than wait for the courts to rule on who should have to disclose the donors funding their electioneering communications, these Republicans instead simply chose to ignore the clear text of the 2002 campaign finance law and have allowed hundreds of outside group ads to be aired with no real disclosure as to who bankrolled the message.

And by waiting as much as five years to take action on obvious violations, they have ensured that campaigns can do virtually anything without fear of any meaningful penalty.

Former Common Cause President Scott Harshbarger once quipped that, ”This is probably the only agency in Washington that has done from the beginning exactly what it was intended to do, which was to do nothing.” But with an unprecedented number of deadlocked votes on even routine enforcement matters, Hunter, McGahn, and Petersen have managed to make historically weak campaign finance enforcement almost non-existent.

The Federal Election Commission will reach an ignominious milestone at midnight Tuesday: every single one of its members’ terms will have expired. But thanks to a quirk in election law — and Washington gridlock — they continue to serve and deadlock on nearly every major issue.

Former Common Cause President Scott Harshbarger once quipped that, ”This is probably the only agency in Washington that has done from the beginning exactly what it was intended to do, which was to do nothing.” The Commission, by design, includes six members — no more than three from each major political party. While appointees are limited to a single, staggered six-year term, they are permitted to stay on indefinitely until they are replaced. No commissioner has been confirmed since the George W. Bush administration and one seat is currently vacant. Five of the six terms had expired by the end of April 2011 — though four of those five are still serving two years later (a fifth stayed on through February 1 of this year).

President Obama has, to date, nominated just one person to the commission. Though his nominee, SEIU Associate General Counsel John J. Sullivan, received unanimous committee support, his nomination was held up by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) in a failed attempt to force more nominees. After a year of waiting, Sullivan withdrew his name from the process.

Last year, a “We the People” White House petition received more than 25,000 signatures demanding that the President nominate new commissioners to replace the anti-enforcement Republican incumbents before the November elections. The White House responded:

While the Administration doesn’t comment publicly about the President’s personnel decisions before he makes them, the Obama Administration is committed to nominating highly qualified individuals to lead the FEC. The agency, and the system of open and fair elections that the FEC is charged with protecting, deserve no less.

The three Republican appointees continue to block meaningful disclosure, deadlock against most enforcement, and ensure toothless enforcement — and will apparently continue to do so indefinitely.