Sen. David Vitter joined Cause of Action for a discussion on how collusion among a handful of individuals, environmentalist groups and the government is shaping public policy. Sen. Vitter will presented new evidence of the large amounts of money behind the environmental movement.
Archives for July 2014
07/30/2014
Fox News: Republican report alleges ‘billionaire’s club’ funding environmental causes through ‘shady’ network
Read the full story: Fox News
Dan Epstein, director of the conservative Cause of Action, said in a statement that the report also speaks to a problem of “fiscal sponsorship” – where charities effectively sell nonprofit status to others, in turn receiving charitable donations for another group.
“Cause of Action has asked the IRS to take simple steps to define the rules for fiscal sponsorship, but they refused to do so, protecting their political friends, while targeting their political enemies,” Epstein said.
07/30/2014
The Hill: Green movement backed by ‘Billionaire’s Club’
Read the full story: The Hill
Cause of Action, a conservative group that has fought for the government to take action against environmental tax-exempt groups, welcomed the report.
“While the IRS seems to be over-inclusive in auditing legitimate nonprofits that differ politically from the administration, they have been under-inclusive in their oversight of politically favored groups who are actually abusing the law,” Dan Epstein, the group’s director, said in a statement.
“What EPW’s report shows is the environmental movement is following the very model President Obama criticized, manipulating the tax code in the process, with no repercussion from the IRS.”
07/30/2014
Cause of Action Statement on New Report by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Cause of Action’s Executive Director Dan Epstein commented on the new report, “The Chain of Environmental Command,” released by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works revealing how collusion amongst a handful of individuals, environmentalist groups and the government is shaping public policy:
“Despite our request nearly two years ago to TIGTA to investigate organizations violating their tax-exempt status through fiscal sponsorship, the agency has done nothing and as the Committee’s new findings show, the abuse of fiscal sponsorship is obviously still a problem. While the IRS seems to be over-inclusive in auditing legitimate nonprofits that differ politically from the Administration, they have been under-inclusive in their oversight of politically favored groups who are actually abusing the law. Even the President has spoken out against millionaires and billionaires ‘bankrolling whoever they want, however they want, in some cases undisclosed.’ But what EPW’s report shows is the environmental movement is following the very model President Obama criticized, manipulating the tax code in the process, with no repercussion from the IRS. Cause of Action has asked the IRS to take simple steps to define the rules for fiscal sponsorship, but they refused to do so, protecting their political friends, while targeting their political enemies.”
Read our report on fiscal sponsorship here.
07/29/2014
Washington Times: All IRS roads lead to the archivist
This op-ed originally appeared in the Washington Times on July 29, 2014.
EPSTEIN: All IRS roads lead to the archivist
The nation’s record-keeper may know what happened to the missing emails
The Internal Revenue Service is the House of Representatives’ public enemy No. 1. The agency has quietly admitted that it has lost emails for seven employees at the center of the agency’s targeting of conservative groups, including the former employee at the heart of the scandal, Lois Lerner. The admission of a loss of records during the course of a congressional investigation hints at either gross bureaucratic negligence or a federal agency gone legally astray — perhaps both.
However, Congress may be barking up the wrong tree in its search for answers. Currently, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has focused its investigation on the White House and the IRS. Both have avoided or delayed disclosure in response to the committee’s requests, giving the public little information on whether there was collusion between the agency and the administration.
That’s why Congress should invite David Ferriero, the archivist at the National Archives and Records Administration, to testify again. He may have the answers that Congress is looking for.
Mr. Ferriero’s involvement with the IRS began on Nov. 28, 2011. On that date, President Obama signed a presidential memorandum instructing both the archivist and the Office of Management and Budget to update the federal government’s records-management policies. The two agencies responded on Aug. 24, 2012, with a directive authorizing agencies to “eliminate paper and use electronic record-keeping.” This dictum was “applicable to all executive agencies and to all records.”
The directive almost certainly conflicts with the Federal Records Act, which instructs agencies to create their own regulations regarding document retention. IRS’ regulations, for instance, required Ms. Lerner to print and file her emails and her attachments. By following the archivist’s order, the IRS may have violated its own regulations — and therefore the Federal Records Act.
To date, Mr. Ferriero has not testified to Congress about the apparent inconsistencies between the directive, which he signed, and the Federal Records Act, which he enforces. Nor has he testified whether the IRS actually has the printed copies of Ms. Lerner’s correspondence, per the agency’s requirements.
These aren’t the only questions he must answer. The archivist is also uniquely knowledgeable about the White House’s record-keeping procedures.
Shortly after Ms. Lerner’s emails were revealed by the IRS to be “lost,” the White House flatly denied involvement. White House spokesman Jay Carney responded to Congress’ accusations by stating, “We found zero emails between Lois Lerner and anyone within the [executive office of the president] during this period.”
This language may be intentional — particularly the phrase “during this period.” The Presidential Records Act allows the president, at any time during his term of office, to “dispose of those records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational or evidentiary value .”
The archivist has the only real check on this power. When the president requests that certain records be thrown in the trash, the Presidential Records Act requires that the archivist present his “views, in writing” to the White House. If he disagrees with any of the president’s requests, he is required by law to inform no fewer than three congressional committees, including one in the Senate and two in the House. He need not notify anyone in Congress when he consents to a records request.
Congress must ascertain whether the White House consulted Mr. Ferriero regarding the disposition of any White House communications during this time and what issues those communications mentioned. Without knowing this information, we cannot know if the archivist consented to the disposition of email communications between Ms. Lerner and the White House.
Without Mr. Ferriero’s testimony, the truth behind the IRS’ — and the White House’s — actions may never be known. No other federal official has been so intimately involved in the various changes to record-keeping policies at federal agencies. Nor is anyone else outside the White House so knowledgeable about the integrity of the administration’s correspondence. Quite simply, the archivist may be the key to unlocking the entire investigation.
Congress must hear the archivist’s testimony on these questions. By all appearances, the IRS has perpetrated a great crime against the American people — and may have done so at the White House’s bidding. However, we can’t know any of this with complete certainty until Congress starts asking the right people, starting with Mr. Ferriero.
Dan Epstein is the executive director of Cause of Action.
07/24/2014
Cause of Action Demands Investigation of CPSC for Waste, Abuse and Mismanagement Relating to Buckyballs Matter
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
July 23, 2014 Mary Beth Hutchins, 202-400-2721
Cause of Action Demands Investigation of CPSC for Waste, Abuse and Mismanagement Relating to Buckyballs Matter
WASHINGTON – Cause of Action (CoA), a government accountability organization, sent a letter Wednesday to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)’s Inspector General (IG) seeking an investigation of CPSC for improprieties related to its investigation of Mr. Craig Zucker, the former CEO of the company that sold Buckyballs. The CPSC’s investigation led to waste of taxpayer dollars and forced Mr. Zucker to expend considerable resources to defend himself.
“The CPSC’s actions regarding Craig Zucker were never about consumer safety, they’re about punishing an entrepreneur who spoke out against the agency’s overzealous, overreaching activity,” said CoA Executive Director Dan Epstein. “The IG’s role is to prevent and root out fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement. Therefore, it must investigate the CPSC’s behavior concerning Mr. Zucker.”
CoA’s request centers on 3 primary allegations:
- CPSC Made Material Misrepresentations in its Amended Complaints – Former CPSC Executive Director Kenneth Hinson and CPSC Assistant General Counsel Mary B. Murphy claimed that they obtained Commission authorization to amend CPSC’s original Complaint against Mr. Zucker’s company and to potentially hold Mr. Zucker personally responsible for conducting a recall. But they never obtained such authorization, in violation of CPSC regulations and Mr. Zucker’s due process rights.
- CPSC Retaliated Against Mr. Zucker for his Exercise of First Amendment Rights. Mr. Zucker aggressively defended his actions in numerous forums, and CPSC responded by pursuing the complaint against Mr. Zucker personally in an attempt to deter him and other corporate officers from exercising their rights to free speech. Never before in the history of CPSC had an action been filed to require an officer or former officer of a company to personally conduct a recall.
- CPSC Failed to Comply with the IQA and FOIA. In connection with this matter, CPSC’s actions demonstrated its failure to comply with its information collection, dissemination and quality requirements under the Information Quality Act (IQA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). CPSC made public statements that failed to include information required by the IQA and/or were inconsistent with the facts. CPSC also failed for months to respond to a FOIA request for records relating to the Buckyballs investigation and the prosecution of Mr. Zucker. As a result, CoA was forced to file an IQA petition (on Mr. Zucker’s behalf) and a FOIA lawsuit.
Read the letter here.
Read the exhibits here.
About Cause of Action:
Cause of Action is a non-profit, nonpartisan government accountability organization that fights to protect economic opportunity when federal regulations, spending and cronyism threaten it. For more information, visit www.causeofaction.org.
To schedule an interview with Cause of Action’s Executive Director Dan Epstein, contact Mary Beth Hutchins, mary.beth.hutchins@causeofaction.org
###
07/22/2014
Two Obamacare Court Decisions: Only One Win for Accountability
Two Obamacare Court Decisions: Only One Win for Accountability
WASHINGTON – Cause of Action responded to two crucial court decisions today concerning the Affordable Care Act: Halbig v. Burwell, et al in the DC Circuit and King v. Burwell, et al in the 4th Circuit, showing that in the end, these cases are really about executive branch power and the need for accountability.
Cause of Action’s Senior Vice President of Litigation Reed Rubinstein:
“Two courts today affirmed the critical role of an external check on executive branch power– but only one court got it right. While the 4th Circuit gave lip service to the judiciary’s role as a check on agency action, it deferred to the agency’s own interpretation of the law. The DC Circuit, however, actually put that check into play and ruled that the IRS acted without authority. If our courts merely defer to executive branch power, no check and balance exists. Judges must do the job of judging and not hand over this responsibility to the agencies.”
###