The word "scenario" gets tossed around a lot in political analysis. Reading this morning's Star Tribune, we recalled the origin of the term:
A scenario (from Italian, that which is pinned to the scenery) is a synthetic description of an event or series of actions and events. In the Commedia dell'arte it was an outline of entrances, exits, and action describing the plot of a play that was literally pinned to the back of the scenery. It is also known as canovaccio or "that which is pinned to the canvas" of which the scenery was constructed.
Since Walz noted that he'd listen to farmers in his district, rather than ideologues at the Club for Growth, he's been on the conservative group's crosshairs. And D. J. Tice's political reporters give us a glimpse behind the scenery where the Club for Growth is pinning its script on the canvas. Unfortunately, readers aren't given the context to understand the group directing this snake oil show.
Not missing an opportunity to give voice to conservative Beltway interests in its political coverage, the Star Tribune takes up the Club for Growth's talking points in Oberstar's gas tax may hit some political potholes:
'Don't make me vote on this'
With the president and many other Republicans opposed, some observers say it is unlikely that Democrats will want to press a close, party-line vote to increase the federal fuel tax, which has stood at 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993.
"If the president isn't interested, it has almost zero chance of passing," said David Keating, executive director of the small-government group Club for Growth.
One reason, Keating said, is that Democrats don't want to hand an election-year issue to Republicans. "The idea of Congress passing higher gas prices on motorists -- I don't think anyone's going to be interested," he said. "And any Democrat in a vulnerable district is going to think 'Please, guys, don't make me vote on this.' "
One example is freshman Democrat Tim Walz, whose rural Minnesota constituents could be hit hard by higher gas prices. Walz, considered a top legislative target for Republicans next year, has taken no position on Oberstar's proposal so far.
Note how the entire scenario above is spun straight from the mouth of the director of the Club for Growth. We'll doubtless hear it echoed in Right Blogisota as if it were a quote from Walz himself, rather than an invention of a DC ideologue. A more judicious journalist might note that Walz's style is to listen to his constituents, and use research-based decision-making while dealing with constraints, rather than to jump on a bandwagon. Details, details.
Likewise, the Strib's readership might be better served were Diaz to more fully define the scriptmakers beyond a "small-government group."
What is the Club for Growth? Open Secrets, Sourcewatch, PFAW ( also check out its archives), and the Center for Public Integrity provide some helpful information about the group and its funders. The PFAW site notes:
Club for Growth is comprised of two connected entities:
First, CFG is a “527” organization, which is allowed to collect unlimited contributions without disclosing donors’ names, and to run “issue ad” campaigns during elections. These ads do not directly call for the election or defeat of a candidate, and “527” groups do not have to disclose donors’ identity or reveal its activities to the IRS or the FEC.
Second, it is a political action committee (PAC), and organization capable of giving limited donations directly to campaigns and is regulated by the FEC.
Given the fact that contributions are unlimited, the spending by the “527” is far larger than that of the PAC, though specific finances are hard to trace. However, in total, CFG raised $9.2 million for its activities during the 2002 election cycle.
This information is a little dated, given the FEC filed a lawsuit against the organization in 2005. The lawsuit is still pending, but in order to make sure it can get around the rules, the Club has simply reorganized itself, according to Roll Call's April 11, 2007 article, Club for Growth, Other Big Groups Altering Tax Status. Some choice excerpts from behind the subscription firewall:
The Club for Growth, the conservative political organization known for targeting moderate Republican lawmakers, recently shelved its 527 tax status in favor of the designation used by AARP, the National Rifle Association and others, a legal retooling many expect to accelerate as the 2008 election cycle turns on the afterburners.
"There's been a lot more scrutiny over the past several years on 527 organizations," said Michael Toner, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and now a Republican election law attorney in private practice. "There's a growing recognition that 501(c)'s are the vehicles of choice in this legal and political environment."
Former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), the group's president, first told club members in January of the plan to transfer operations from the much-maligned 527 tax status to 501(c)(4), a section of the tax code used by social welfare organizations. Charities, labor unions and business groups also are organized under section 501(c) of the tax code. . . .
. . .The club's reorganized tax status will alter little of the group's focus on "promoting economic freedom," Toomey wrote, but also will allow unlimited anonymous donations from individuals and allow the group to take part in a variety of new lobbying activities. Club directors also reconfigured its political action committee, which it can use to channel hard-dollar donations to candidates.
"With the Democrats now in charge of Congress, we need that hard-hitting advocacy more than ever ... we can now directly lobby Congress and run grassroots lobbying campaigns without paying huge tax penalties," Toomey wrote. "Unlike in the past, your donations to the Club will not be disclosed to the public, except in very limited circumstances."
A report out Tuesday by the Campaign Finance Institute also suggests that 527s will prove pass, once the chips for the 2008 election cycle are counted and cashed. Instead, big-dollar, soft-money donors increasingly may prefer redesigned groups such as the Club for Growth, which are precisely crafted to avoid hefty FEC fines and can keep their donor lists confidential. The requirement that 527s make public their donor lists proved politically troublesome recently for White House nominee and GOP donor Sam Fox.
"There was significant energy among the 501(c) advocacy groups and newer 'taxable' entities in '06," according to the Campaign Finance Institute's report "Soft Money in the 2006 Election and the Outlook for 2008." . . .
. . .The club has "decided that it would rather tangle with the [Internal Revenue Service] over the appropriateness of activity going on within a 501(c)(4) then tangle with the FEC in the current environment," Elias said.
Club President Toomey said his new group should be largely immune to meddling by Federal Election Commission lawyers. The group continues to wait for a federal judge's decision in a nearly two-year-old legal battle with the FEC over whether the club, as a 527 organization, should be required to file with the agency as a political action committee for raising and spending "millions of dollars to affect Congressional elections in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 campaigns."
Although its new status could shroud the group from some legal scrutiny, [Democratic election lawyer Marc] Elias said that simply switching to 501(c)(4) tax status does not eliminate altogether the possibility of an FEC lawsuit.
"If a 501(c)(4) ran an ad that 'expressly advocated' the election or defeat of a clearly identifiable candidate, the FEC would almost certainly take the position that that was impermissible ... because it would be a corporation making expenditures in connection with a federal election," Elias said.
Elias also speculated that the club's ongoing legal battles and its recent decision to reorganize are hardly isolated, suggesting that the club - and perhaps many other 527s - may face a decision of survival: switch tax status, or be prepared for lengthy and expensive court battles with the federal government.
"Does that mean the [club's] litigation is going well, or going badly?" Elias asked.
From the few procedural rulings by the court against the Club that we found in Lexis, not so good. No decision or settlement has been rendered in the case, near as we can tell. Later in April, Congresswatch research director Taylor Lincoln wrote that the IRS Needs to Draw the Line on 501(c) Electioneering
One observation:
Public Citizen has warned for years that restrictions on 527s could prompt a flood of new Section 501(c) registrations by political groups unless there is better enforcement. This prediction is proving prescient. In the face of the FEC's growing oversight of 527s, the Club for Growth recently converted to 501(c) status. Former FEC Chairman Michael Toner chalked up the club's decision to "a growing recognition that 501(c)s are the vehicles of choice in this legal and political environment."
In 2004, the IRS cracked down on groups registered under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code - charities and churches - which are forbidden from engaging in any electioneering efforts. But the agency has been derelict in enforcing the rules that apply to 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5) and 501(c)(6) groups. These groups' electioneering expenditures dwarf those of the charities and churches that ended up in the IRS's cross hairs.
Given the secretive Big Money contributors to the Club for Growth, it's been interesting reading the Club's puppets mouth pieties about Walz pandering to the rich.
The Strib article ends on a grace note. As if an afterthought, Diaz adds:
But Walz is hardly alone in reserving judgment in the early going. Rep. Jim Ramstad, a Minnesota Republican who, like Walz, positions himself as a moderate, said he is "reviewing the proposal."
Ah, yes, the moderate Republican. Doesn't look as if the Club revealed any stage directions about t he fate of the Rammer to Kevin Diaz.
In the past, the Club for Growth has focused more on defeating moderate Republicans than on Democratic candidates and legislators. It did endorse one Democratic primary candidate down in Texas in 2006. Cough; both Democrats in the primary ended up winning House seats, but that, as Mr. Kipling used to say, was another story (and script).
Comments