Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act of 2014

Floor Speech

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely have the greatest respect for the good doctor. I think he is a reasonable man and a good person, but when you are explaining, you are losing.

I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.

After we learned last year about the inexcusable way the IRS evaluated applications for tax-exempt status--because that is what is at the heart of this issue--I was hopeful that we could have a bipartisan response. After all, it was not only conservative groups, as you have heard, that had their applications singled out solely because of words like ``Tea Party.'' No one is denying that. Progressive groups were inappropriately filtered as well. My Democratic colleagues and I were equally outraged by this behavior. We put it on the record. But those hopes faded quickly when it became apparent that my colleagues on the other side weren't actually interested in investigating this wrongdoing and fixing the problems.

This bill is just the latest example of how,

instead, they are only concerned with scoring cheap political points. Where I am from in Paterson, New Jersey, we would call this Pyrrhic sophistry. That is what we would call it. Empty arguments, deceitful. That is what that means.

The examples the Republican leader pointed out could be under section 527. But if you are under 527, you need to disclose where the money came from. So you choose not to be under section 527 of the Tax Code. You would rather be in another section. And what is that other section? You are not tax liable and you don't have to disclose who gave you the money.

What is this? Russia? China?

You heard the numbers. We are talking about billions of dollars. The difference? They would have to disclose where the money came from.

No evidence of any retribution has been found yet within either political party. So this is really a witch hunt. For the American people, unfortunately, it is the integrity of our electoral process here that is on trial.

The fact is that the Supreme Court's rulings have legalized a torrent of hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate spending that has infected our elections.

We ask again today, join us in correcting that decision by the Supreme Court. It has infected our legal process.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. CROWLEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. PASCRELL. One of the most egregious newly legal big spenders are organizations operating as 501(c)(4) tax-exempt groups. They could easily be under section 527. We created a special section of the Tax Code precisely for tax-exempt political groups. No, they don't want to go under those groups, because if they go under those groups, they have got to tell us who is contributing to them.

This is absolutely chicanery. These regulations aren't some wild-eyed, down-the-rabbit-hole conspiracy theory to prosecute the President's political enemies.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.

Mr. CROWLEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. PASCRELL. They are simply about preserving congressional intent and providing clear rules of the road, both for tax-exempt groups and the IRS, about what exactly is political activity so they know what is permissible under the law.

This isn't about free speech. This isn't about being a Tea Party or a Progressive. Spend all the money you want to say whatever you want about any election. Just don't expect to be able to do so while calling yourself a tax-exempt social welfare group.

We are paying more taxes because these people are getting away with it. That is the bottom line. And you, I know, Doctor, are totally against that, because you would not really, in the final analysis, prefer that some groups are better than others--those particularly who don't tell us who donated to the group.

Source