Cause of Action Memos Impugn Obama Transparency Pledge

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                           

June 20, 2013

Cause of Action Memos Impugn Obama Transparency Pledge

CoA obtains previously unreleased White House Memo detailing undisclosed FOIA policies

WASHINGTON – Cause of Action (CoA), a government accountability organization, today released a previously undisclosed copy of an April 2009 White House memo sent to all Executive Department and Agency General Counsels urging them to run all third-party requests dealing with “White House equities”– including congressional and Freedom of Information Act requests (FOIA)–through the White House Counsel’s office. This memo was sent just months after the President issued his January 2009 Executive Order on FOIA and transparency, and Attorney General Eric Holder’s March 2009 memo on FOIA—both of which were made public. According to the Department of Justice this memo is still in effect.

Additionally, CoA also obtained a previously unreleased copy of a November 2010 Treasury Inspector General report, revealing two concerning aspects of how the IRS and Treasury handle FOIA requests:

  •  The IRS treats “major media” requests as “special review,” therefore applying an additional layer of scrutiny and slowing down the FOIA  process.
  • The White House may have reviewed Treasury Department FOIA productions and claimed privileges before documents were released to the requestor.

 

Dan Epstein, Cause of Action’s executive director, commented on the consequences of these findings:

“We are concerned that the President’s transparency pledges and removal of the Office of Political Affairs may have all been a charade to not only politicize the Freedom of Information Act but to use the White House legal office to politicize the executive branch. The White House is not an agency subject to FOIA and should have no control over the FOIA process. The White House policy violates the intent of FOIA, which requires that federal agencies promptly respond to requests.  The broad claim for documents relating to “White House equities” is unprecedented.

How are we to trust an Administration that has gone after the press and politicized the nation’s most important tool for knowing what its government is up to?”

Related Documents:

White House Memo 

Treasury Inspector General Report

 

 

FoxNews.com: Obama administration pledged transparency, but slowed document requests, memos show

Obama administration pledged transparency, but slowed document requests, memos show

By Judson Berger    Published June 20, 2013

Even as the freshly minted Obama administration was pledging a “new era of open government” in 2009, officials were quietly adding new rules that had the potential to slow down public requests for documents.

Those rules, detailed in memos reviewed by FoxNews.com, could even trip up present-day efforts to dig into the IRS’ practice of targeting conservative groups. The rules detailed in the memos largely emanated from the Treasury Department and, specifically, the IRS.

“It would seem to repudiate this notion that this is going to be the most transparent government in history,” said Dan Epstein, executive director of Cause of Action, the group that first obtained the memos.

The memos follow reports about the administration’s use of private email accounts, and coincide with ongoing debate about government transparency — particularly with recent disclosures about widespread surveillance programs.

Epstein said the document request procedures are “troubling” since the media are “really concerned about the limits of government power.”

According to the documents, the Treasury Department in 2009 set up an additional review for requests involving “sensitive information,” which covered a broad range of items. The White House sometimes got involved, slowing down the process. The IRS also acknowledged having another review process for requests from “major media,” but not for requests from private individuals.

Members of the media often try to obtain documents not readily available by citing a law known as the Freedom of Information Act. The Treasury Department, though, in late 2009 erected speed bumps for some so-called FOIA requests.

The rules were detailed in a November 2010 memo and report sent from the Treasury inspector general to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

The documents showed the Treasury Department set up an additional “formal level of review” for requests for “sensitive information.” This category would cover everything from emails to memos to calendars to travel logs for top department officials, legal advisers, senior advisers and others.

Once a request was deemed “sensitive,” it would then go before a “review committee,” made up of officials from several Treasury offices.

Further, the document said a special report would be prepared for IRS requests from “major media.” This covers requests from traditional news media as well as bloggers, and according to the report covered information that “was likely to attract news media or congressional interest, involved large dollar amounts, or involved unique or novel issues.”

This report would then be sent to a higher-up in the division who decided whether the material should be disclosed.

The report repeatedly said that, in most cases, political appointees were not involved in these decisions, and that the agencies have no procedures to allow that.

But Epstein said these rules could cause problems as Congress and the media dig deeper into the origin of the IRS practice of singling out conservative groups for additional scrutiny.

He pointed to another memo, dated April 15, 2009, from then-White House Counsel Greg Craig that urged “executive agencies” to consult with his office “on all document requests that may involve documents with White House equities.” Craig said this pertains to everything from FOIA requests to congressional requests to subpoenas.

This practice apparently dates back to 1993. The Treasury IG memo cited this, and described the White House involvement as “minimal and limited.” However, the report also said the White House involvement “was responsible in several cases for adding a significant processing delay,” which in Treasury’s case slowed them down.

“It actually is heavily ironic in the realm of transparency,” Epstein said.

He pointed to edicts and memos early on in the first term of the administration stressing transparency. Obama issued a January 2009 directive calling for an “unprecedented level of openness.”

Attorney General Eric Holder in March 2009 directed all Executive Branch departments to use a “presumption of openness” when dealing with FOIA requests.

To that end, the administration has instituted several other transparency initiatives. It has followed through on requiring Cabinet secretaries to hold Internet town hall discussions, set up a comprehensive website to track stimulus spending, and set up a national declassification center.

 

Cause of Action Sues IRS for Records of Communications between the White House and IRS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                   CONTACT:      

June 20, 2013                                                                                     Jamie Morris, 202-499-2425

 

Cause of Action Sues IRS for Records of Communications between

the White House and IRS

IRS refuses to reveal whether the White House has improperly received individuals’ tax return information

WASHINGTON – Cause of Action (CoA), a government accountability organization, yesterday filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for its wrongful withholding and redaction of documents involving records of communications between the White House and the IRS. These documents would reveal whether the President requested tax records of individuals and businesses outside the legally permitted process under the tax code.

“While this Administration claims to be the most transparent in American history, it is ultimately unwilling to disclose to the American people whether the President improperly accessed confidential tax information of individuals and companies,” stated Dan Epstein, Cause of Action’s executive director.  “We aren’t asking for the tax records themselves—only the requests. What is the Administration trying to hide?”

CoA filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in October 2012 for records of communication between the White House and the IRS concerning taxpayer information, particularly communications that were not made pursuant to 6103(g) of the tax code, which authorizes the President to request any individual’s tax return information from the IRS. On March 4, 2013, the IRS issued its final response—and with it, only partial records, thereby obstructing the path to transparency which American taxpayers were promised. CoA filed suit against the IRS, declaring that the IRS has wrongfully withheld the requested records, directing the IRS to revise its search and provide full records of communications from the White House to the IRS involving requests for tax returns.

The complaint, along with our exhibits, can be found here.

About Cause of Action:

Cause of Action is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that uses investigative, legal, and communications tools to educate the public on how government accountability and transparency protects taxpayer interests and economic opportunity. For more information, visit www.causeofaction.org.

 

To schedule an interview with Cause of Action’s Executive Director Dan Epstein,

contact Jamie Morris, jamie.morris@causeofaction.org.

###

 

CFPB advises employees to FOIA-proof their work calendars

Updated: May 22, 2014 with the full CFPB FOIA Brochure

“Transparency is at the core of our agenda, and it is a key part of how we operate.   You deserve to know what the new bureau is doing for the American public and how we are doing it.” 

 CFPB Website

“Keep your calendar entries brief and general. If possible, avoid annotating entries with agendas, detail discussions, etc.

Minimize attachments to your calendar appointments. Consider using email to send related attachments.”

CFPB FOIA Team to CFPB employees

 

CFPB employees have been advised by its FOIA staff to keep their work calendars “brief and general” and to remove meetings to which they “were invited but did not attend,” according to a list of calendar tips obtained by Cause of Action.

These “Recommended Calendar DOs and DON’Ts” further suggest that employees “avoid annotating entries with agendas, detailed discussions,” and “minimize attachments to your calendar appointments.”  Consistent with such advice, the leadership calendars posted (and touted) by CFPB are noticeably devoid of details.

These calendar tips undoubtedly make it easier for the bureau’s FOIA staff to process any requested calendars.  However, they also undermine the Administration’s asserted commitment to creating “an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”  Additionally, this behind-the-scenes advice indicates that transparency at CFPB is not actually a “key mission,” as claimed.  Rather than full disclosure, the name of the game at CFPB obviously is partial disclosure lite.

Related: FOIA requests have found that the IRS and the DOJ are more concerned with their public image than they are with completing FOIA requests in accordance with the law.

CFPB FOIA Calendar Brochure by CauseOfAction

CFPB FOIA Insiders Guide 2013 by CauseOfAction

CFPB FOIA Email Focus 2013 by CauseOfAction

Lack of IRS Oversight Lead to Fraud, Money Laundering, and Abuse by Tax-Exempt Groups

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                                 CONTACT:      

June 17, 2013                                                                                       Jamie Morris, 202-499-2425

 

Lack of IRS Oversight Lead to

 Fraud, Money Laundering, and Abuse by Tax-Exempt Groups

Cause of Action releases investigative report on fiscal sponsorship: “Conprofit: How the IRS’s Failed Oversight Allows Nonprofit Money Laundering”

WASHINGTON – Cause of Action (CoA), a government accountability organization, today released “Conprofit: How the IRS’s Failed Oversight Allows Nonprofit Money Laundering,” a comprehensive report revealing significant loopholes in the tax code which allow nonprofits to engage in corruption, fraud, and money laundering—in some cases with federal funds. In light of these findings, Cause of Action filed a petition for rulemaking with the IRS, asking them to define and set clear parameters for the practice of fiscal sponsorship.

CoA’s fifteen-month long investigation demonstrates how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)  has consistently lacked oversight and enforcement of its Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, the same division that has recently come under public, Congressional, and legal scrutiny for allegedly targeting applicants for 501(c)(4) status that hold specific political beliefs. The report reveals how the International Humanities Center (IHC), Christian Community, Inc. (CCI), and Help Is Here, Inc. (HIH), as well as other nonprofits, routinely used the practice of fiscal sponsorship to abuse their tax-exempt status, and in some cases even commit fraud.

“Conprofit: How the IRS’s Failed Enforcement Allows Nonprofit Money Laundering” exposes how these groups subverted the original intent of fiscal sponsorship, which is to create opportunities for charitable projects to start their endeavors under existing nonprofit groups. Instead, “Conprofit: How the IRS’s Failed Oversight Allows Nonprofit Money Laundering” documents fraud, corruption, and money laundering happening under the guise of fiscal sponsorship.

Some of the most egregious examples of fiscal sponsorship abuse:

  • IHC sponsored over 200 projects as a fiscal sponsor then collapsed after funneling almost $1 million in project funding toward its own mismanaged debts.
  • HIH preyed upon projects, improperly seizing funds, refusing to disburse funding to projects, and attempting to wrest control over projects which attempted to leave.
  • CCI posed as a fiscal sponsor for twenty years.  Tax documents, audits, and bank statements were fabricated and over $400,000 in project funding was lost.

 

Cause of Action’s Executive Director Dan Epstein explained the consequences of these findings:

“Cause of Action has exposed yet another layer of mismanagement and lack of oversight at the IRS.  This report exposes how the IRS engaged in selective enforcement, targeting certain 501(c)(3) applicants with additional scrutiny while it has approved the tax-exempt status of charities that have engaged in money laundering and fraud.

 

Significant loopholes in the tax code have opened the door to abuse for organizations to funnel money, fabricate tax documents, and destroy charities by abusing fiscal sponsorship. We now turn to Congress and the IRS to define fiscal sponsorship and remove the ambiguities which have allowed groups such as IHC, CCI, and HIH to exploit and defraud American taxpayers.”

 

Click here to read a full copy of the report.

About Cause of Action:

Cause of Action is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that uses investigative, legal, and communications tools to educate the public on how government accountability and transparency protects taxpayer interests and economic opportunity. For more information, visit www.causeofaction.org.

To schedule an interview with Cause of Action’s Executive Director Dan Epstein, contact Jamie Morris, jamie.morris@causeofaction.org.

###

 

Roll Call: Dan Epstein: Congress Is Not the Answer: How We Really Should Be Investigating the IRS

Congress Is Not the Answer: How We Really Should Be Investigating the IRS | Commentary

By Dan Epstein     June 11, 2013, 5 a.m.

Three congressional committees were authorized to (and seemingly did) begin investigations in 2010 of the IRS’ political targeting, yet none of them were able to reveal what the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reported last month.

Even though TIGTA head J. Russell George has now appeared before multiple committees, no one has questioned why TIGTA chose to examine the IRS’ politicization through an audit instead of an investigation. The Inspector General Act authorizes TIGTA to obtain the production of documentary evidence by subpoenas, yet TIGTA issued none. Item 2 of Treasury Order 115-01 authorizes TIGTA to conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, bring criminal enforcement actions and make referrals to the attorney general for prosecution. Yet none of this happened.

The much-publicized House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the subject revealed that former IRS Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner may have improperly received immunity by taking the Fifth only after pleading her innocence in an opening statement. The White House has claimed executive privilege, refusing to provide information to congressional oversight committees — and without independent prosecutorial authority, Congress can do little other than issue contempt charges, which this administration views as little more than a slap on the wrist. When Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. denied Congress information concerning the “Fast and Furious” scandal, Congress issued a subpoena, held him in contempt, then filed a civil lawsuit, which, as of March, is in mediation; most recently, the DOJ has filed motions to dismiss the case entirely.

Chairmen of both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have authority under the tax code to investigate the IRS issues. Under federal law, the Ways and Means Republicans in the House must keep their investigation secret from Finance Republicans in the Senate just like the Senate Finance Democrats must not share protected information with Ways and Means Democrats. That means that not only is there a self-imposed limit to what Congress can do, there is the added dimension of partisanship: both Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., are forced to keep Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, in the dark.

If partisanship were not an issue, Congress should have established a committee that under 6103(f)(3) could be empowered with virtually unlimited investigative authority. But that hasn’t happened. Additionally, Congress always has the ability to appoint its own special counsel to investigate the IRS, as well as hire an outside counsel to advise it in its investigations. That hasn’t happened either.

Congress, in 1999, took away DOJ’s power to demand the D.C. Circuit appoint an independent counsel with prosecutorial power equal to the attorney general when high-ranking officials in the federal government engaged in criminal wrongdoing. However, the attorney general (or acting attorney general, in cases in which the attorney general is recused) is still authorized to appoint a special counsel when a criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted so long as two conditions are met: an investigation or prosecution by a U.S. Attorney’s Office or litigating division of the DOJ would present a conflict of interest, and the public interest requires appointment of counsel independent from the DOJ. We therefore can infer that Holder’s decision to not appoint a special counsel, and instead ask the FBI to investigate the IRS, suggests that Holder believes no “conflict of interest” exists and it’s not in “the public interest” to have any outside scrutiny of the IRS.

Having exhausted the legislative and executive branch options, only the courts are left. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would allow the federal courts, especially those hearing any of the current challenges to the IRS by tea party groups, to appoint what is called a “special master” to perform investigative and enforcement duties consented to by the parties in the dispute. This also includes authority to conduct an evidentiary hearing and exercise the appointing court’s power to compel, take and record evidence. With a gridlocked Congress and a White House pleading ignorance, the judiciary may be the only government institution capable of providing the thorough and accurate government accountability the American people deserve.

Dan Epstein is the executive director for Cause of Action.

How HHS Secretary Sebelius Broke Federal Law and Avoided Punishment

We’ve written before about Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius violating the Hatch Act.  By campaigning for Walter Dalton’s election as Governor of North Carolina and Barack Obama’s reelection as President at a Human Rights Campaign Gala, Sebelius used taxpayer funding for her own partisan priorities.  The precedent for presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed federal employees violating the Hatch Act is resignation.  Sebelius is the highest-level federal employee to break this law, but President Obama, the sole administration official with the authority to see that the penalty for this violation was paid, not only declined to ask Sebelius to resign, but opted to keep the Secretary on for his second term.  White House spokesman Eric Schultz contended that this administration holds itself “to the highest ethical standards[,]” but the facts of the Sebelius debacle would suggest otherwise.

Sebelius labeled her speech at the Human Rights Campaign Gala as an “official” event, meaning that not only would her travel and time be paid for by the taxpayer, but the time and travel of her aide, AJ Pearlman, would be covered as well.  The Hatch Act is a federal law which, according to OSC, “prohibits federal employees from using their official authority or influence to affect the outcome of an election.”  For instance, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, under the law, cannot campaign for a political candidate using her official title, because this would be an abuse of government authority; nor can she use taxpayer-funded travel or the work hours of taxpayer-funded employees and aides to support a political event, because this would be an abuse of taxpayer funding, furthering a personal and political end.  However, Secretary Sebelius committed each of these violations at the HRC Gala – then attempted to cover it up.

In the first half-hearted attempt to make up for this abuse, Sebelius quickly reclassified the event as “political” instead of “official.”  This retroactive attempt to erase the fact that she used her standing as a Cabinet member to influence two upcoming elections was insufficient, and OSC nevertheless concluded that Sebelius did in fact violate the Hatch Act.

The second part of the abuse was the taxpayer dollars spent on the event, and accordingly, Sebelius had an HHS assistant request that the Democratic National Committee reimburse the government for her own travel.  Even this first attempt was mishandled, however: in January 2013, we filed an FEC complaint explaining that the DNC failed to properly disclose this reimbursement.  In fact, the reimbursement was almost impossible to connect to Sebelius’ Hatch Act violation at all: the DNC sent a check marked only with the word “travel” – preventing accountability in determining whether Sebelius’ violation of the law was truly “repaired” by reimbursement for her travel.

But the missteps didn’t end there.  Cause of Action found, after sending Freedom of Information Act requests to four separate agencies, that the U.S. Treasury was not, in fact, reimbursed.  Cause of Action’s FOIA request to the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Management Service turned up no responsive records – even though our FOIA production from OSC proved that Sebelius was ordered multiple times to reimburse the U.S. Treasury.  In the production we received from our FOIA request to HHS, Cause of Action found the DNC’s check, sent to reimburse HHS, not the Treasury:

sebeliusblog1

While White House press secretary Jay Carney again assured reporters that “the U.S. Treasury has been reimbursed,” this has clearly not been the case.  OSC did, however, recognize that HHS was reimbursed instead of the U.S. Treasury, but failed to take action on it, as showed by Cause of Action’s FOIA production from OSC:

sebeliusblog4

The improper reimbursement raises the question of whether the cost of the trip was truly reimbursed, or whether HHS was simply free to use the funds as it wished.  Because OSC did not insist on the proper execution of its own requests for reimbursement, taxpayers dollars remain, in effect, unrecovered.

While the reimbursement for Sebelius’ costs was bungled many times over, Sebelius was not the only federal employee affected by her violation.  In her lengthy process of abdicating responsibility for campaigning on the taxpayer dime, Sebelius effectively threw her own aide under the bus.  AJ Pearlman provided background research in preparation for the HRC Gala where Sebelius promoted Democratic candidates, and attended the event to assist.  As Cause of Action showed in an OSC complaint, when Sebelius scrambled to save her own skin by retroactively reclassifying the event as political instead of official, she made Pearlman’s actions illegal as well.  OSC openly acknowledged that Pearlman’s efforts could not legally be funded by the federal government and ordered Sebelius to reimburse the Pearlman’s travel costs as well, as revealed in a letter from OSC to HHS:

sebeliusblog2 sebeliusblog3

As Cause of Action showed in its January 2013 OSC complaint, if Pearlman’s actions, after Sebelius’s campaigning on government time, could not be funded by taxpayer dollars, then Pearlman too would have committed a Hatch Act violation.  As the OSC wrote to HHS: “the Hatch Act would have prohibited” Pearlman’s work on the HRC event – and so the funding had to be reimbursed.  Cause of Action did its part, but OSC has thus far refused to uphold its own rules (read more about Cause of Action’s letter to Congressman Darrell Issa requesting for investigation into OSC’s failure to execute its duties here).

OSC made clear in the excerpts above that had Sebelius classified the event as political from the beginning, Pearlman’s work would have prohibited by the Hatch Act, but it still chose not to take action against Pearlman. Additionally, the President refused to take any action against Sebelius for her violation, claiming that Sebelius’ meeting with “ethics experts” solved the problem.  The White House won’t hold Sebelius accountable, the U.S. Treasury has not been reimbursed, and OSC’s selective enforcement of the Hatch Act hides Sebelius’s victim: the aide who did as requested.

Sebelius broke federal law but the White House chose not to do its job and ask for her resignation – it seems that its “ethical standards” could use some work.