close X

Search Results for: IRS

October Newsletter

October 31, 2016 by

Cause of Action Institute published its October newsletter today. You can read the newsletter here and subscribe to the newsletter here.  The October newsletter highlights:

  • our investigative report, Presidential Access to Taxpayer Information, describing recent IRS misuse and unauthorized release of confidential taxpayer information and the role of a detailee program in the Office of the White House Counsel that could be used to provide access to the protected information;
  • a request for investigation we made to the Department of Justice Inspector General after one of Hillary Clinton’s top supporters, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, made a substantial political donation to the state senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, the wife of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe; and
  • links to a recent op-ed about how EPA regulations affect the employment of millions of Americans, as well as several news articles covering recent CoA Institute actions.
Filed Under: Newsletter Archive, Newsletter

CoA Institute Files Lawsuit to Obtain Sec. Clinton Ethics Records Related to Clinton Foundation

October 18, 2016 by

Washington, DC – Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) today filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to force the State Department to release ethics records for former Secretary of State Clinton and her staff.

Recently released emails demonstrate that Clinton Foundation donors may have received special access to Secretary Clinton. Those emails raise questions about whether she and members of her staff adequately addressed potential conflicts of interest. These records will help the public understand whether Secretary Clinton complied with the ethics agreement she signed before becoming Secretary, as well as how the State Department’s ethics office advised her and her staff regarding conflicts of interest.

CoA Institute submitted a FOIA request on August 24, 2016, but the State Department failed to produce any records responsive to the request well past the applicable time limits. In addition, the State Department Inspector General found that 47 percent of presidentially-appointed State Department officials failed to complete their mandatory ethics training during Secretary Clinton’s last full year in office.

Cause of Action Institute Vice President John Vecchione: “It appears that State Department officials during Secretary Clinton’s tenure did not take their ethics responsibilities seriously. Americans have a right to know whether Secretary Clinton and her aides at the State Department flouted ethics requirements in order to grant special treatment to Clinton Foundation supporters.”

In January 2009, during Sec. Clinton’s confirmation, she signed an agreement stating: “If confirmed as Secretary of State, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect upon [the Clinton Foundation], unless I first obtain a written waiver or qualify for a regulatory exemption.”

In its lawsuit, CoA Institute demands copies of recusals and ethics agreements for Secretary Clinton and members of her staff, any ethics waivers or exemptions they may have obtained from the State Department ethics office, and ethics office communications concerning Secretary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

The full complaint can be found HERE
The exhibits are available HERE
# # #

Filed Under: Press Release, Media

How Many Obama Political Appointees are “Burrowing” into Permanent Career Positions?

October 18, 2016 by

 CoA Institute questions role of former Obama appointee on the Department of Veterans Affairs Presidential transition team

Washington, DC – Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) today sent two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, one to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and one to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), seeking records on what has become an election-year tradition in Washington D.C.: political appointees at federal agencies attempting to transition to permanent career positions. This practice, commonly referred to as “burrowing,” often entails political employees gaining unfair advantage and using their connections to obtain permanent positions.
Cause of Action Institute Vice President John Vecchione: “Selecting permanent federal government employees based on ideology instead of qualifications is a disservice to American taxpayers and results in less qualified civil servants. Burrowing also provides the outgoing presidential administration the ability to place ideological allies within the federal government permanently, creating a more politicized bureaucracy. American taxpayers have a right to know how many Obama administration political appointees are gaming the system and attempting to transition to permanent positions.”
In an effort to curtail burrowing, OPM in 2009 began requiring any agency attempting to appoint current or former political appointees to a competitive, career position to first obtain approval from OPM. However, it is unclear how often agencies request waivers or how often waivers are granted.
Attempts to burrow during the final year of the Obama administration have already come to light. In the FOIA sent today, CoA Institute has requested records relating to an Obama administration appointee burrowed at the VA.  Gina Farrisee was first appointed by the Obama administration to serve as the VA’s Assistant Human Resources Secretary in September 2013. Nearly three years later, on May 2, 2016, the VA announced that Ms. Farrisee was being named the VA’s Deputy Chief of Staff, a permanent career position.
Ms. Farrisee is also apparently a key member of the VA White House transition team that is preparing the agency for the next administration and that she, together with a current political appointee, will be managing the transition process at the VA.  It therefore appears that the top two roles on the VA transition team are led by current or former political appointees, raising questions about the transparency of that process. CoA Institute accordingly has requested all records relating to Ms. Farrisee’s role on the VA Presidential transition team.
The FOIA to OPM can be found HERE
The FOIA to VA can be found HERE
# # #

Filed Under: Press Release, Media

Report Reveals How White House Evaded Checks, Likely Accessed Confidential Taxpayer Information

October 12, 2016 by

Washington, D.C. – Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) today released a comprehensive investigative report, Presidential Access to Taxpayer Information. The report covers in detail recent IRS misuse and unauthorized release of confidential taxpayer information and the possible role of a detailee program in the Office of the White House Counsel that may have provided access to the protected information.

The report states:

Following the misuse and unauthorized release of confidential taxpayer information during President Obama’s first term, including the largest breach of taxpayer confidentiality laws by the federal government in United States history, Cause of Action Institute investigated the legal and institutional checks designed to protect against such improper disclosure and the means by which the Obama administration may have evaded those checks.

That investigation revealed that President Obama has circumvented the congressionally created and authorized procedures for accessing confidential taxpayer information—procedures that were designed to be exclusive—by relying on individual consent forms that were never intended for use by the president. The practice has allowed the president to avoid the reporting requirements and limitations placed on presidential access to taxpayer information by the Tax Reform Act of 1976. In particular, the use of individual consents enables the administration to skirt statutory recordkeeping and reporting requirements to Congress, the limitations on the kind of information available for disclosure, and the extent to which such information can be shared within government agencies and offices.

The report reveals that throughout the Obama administration the Office of the White House Counsel employed at least one attorney detailed from the Department of Justice (DOJ) Tax Division.  At least two of those attorney-detailees had intimate knowledge of confidential taxpayer information gained while serving as counsel to the IRS in litigation with nonprofit groups opposed to President Obama’s policies. This information is otherwise restricted from disclosure to the President and other White House officials.

The report shows that neither the DOJ Tax Division nor the Office of the White House Counsel has implemented context-specific training, guidelines, or ethical screens to prevent the inadvertent or deliberate disclosure of confidential taxpayer information by attorney-detailees.

Inherent conflicts of interest in the detailing program make it imperative that Tax Division attorneys who work on detail to the Office of the White House Counsel, especially those who have served as counsel to the IRS in matters involving the political opponents of the president, receive enhanced training and supervision to ensure the safeguarding of confidential taxpayer information. There does not appear to be any such program, specialized training, or targeted guidelines in place.

The report makes several recommendations, including that Congress should amend the Internal Revenue Code to ensure that the exclusive mechanisms created by the Tax Reform Act of 1976 for presidential access to confidential taxpayer information are enforced.

The full report and executive summary can be found here.

 

Filed Under: Media, Press Release Tagged With: , , ,

September Newsletter

September 29, 2016 by

Cause of Action Institute published its September newsletter today. You can read the newsletter here and subscribe to the newsletter here.  The September newsletter highlights:

  • documents CoA Institute recently obtained through FOIA revealing a secret agreement between the IRS and the White House to exempt IRS rules from prepublication review;
  • details of our investigation into taxpayer reimbursements for luxury travel of a political appointee and cash payments to Iran; and
  • links to a recent op-ed Judge Lechner wrote about the spread of partisan politics into the Cabinet and to several press stories about recent CoA Institute activities.

 

Filed Under: Newsletter Archive, Newsletter

Court Rightly Denies Rep. Van Hollen Request to Rehear Free Speech Case

September 28, 2016 by

Supporters of free speech and the First Amendment won a significant victory this week when a federal court denied a last ditch effort by Congressmen (and Senatorial candidate) Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) to salvage his campaign finance case.

On January 21, 2016, a DC Circuit panel reversed the District Court for the District of Columbia and upheld a Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) regulation requiring unions and corporations (including nonprofit organizations) to disclose only those contributors who donate for the purpose of funding an election campaign.

Van Hollen had sued the FEC, arguing that such organizations should be required to reveal all donors, not just those that donate for an election. On appeal to the DC Circuit, CoA Institute filed an amicus brief in support of free speech principles. The DC Circuit agreed with the CoA Institute position that the FEC had struck an acceptable balance between disclosure requirements and First Amendment protections.  In so doing, the Court emphasized a number of points made in the CoA Institute brief, particularly the importance of protecting the constitutional rights of contributors to privacy and anonymous speech.

Following the DC Circuit decision, Van Hollen moved the entire DC Circuit to rehear the case (a rehearing en banc).  On September 27, 2016, the full court denied the petition.  Pending a Supreme Court appeal, the DC Circuit decision is now final.

Filed Under: Blog, Media Tagged With: , , ,

Partisan politics in the Cabinet (Judge Lechner op-ed)

September 21, 2016 by

washington-times

Obama allows senior officials to meddle unlawfully and without accountability

By Alfred J. Lechner Jr. | ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The Obama administration repeatedly allows senior officials to unlawfully meddle in politics without being held accountable. In just the latest incident, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julian Castro in July was found to have violated a law designed to ensure that federal officials work on behalf of all Americans, not their political party. The Hatch Act, enacted in 1939, prohibits employees in the executive branch from engaging in electoral politics when acting in their official capacity. In other words, public officials paid by taxpayers cannot use their position to influence elections.

Apparently this law is a dead letter. During a recent media interview with Yahoo News, Mr. Castro violated this law when he expressed his enthusiastic support for the election of his close friend Hillary Clinton. He touted Mrs. Clinton’s accomplishments while criticizing the Republican Party and its candidate for president, Donald Trump. At the time, Mr. Castro was reported to be on Mrs. Clinton’s short list for vice president.

To be clear: Mr. Castro appeared in his official capacity. The interview was conducted in the HUD broadcast studio in Washington D.C., he was introduced and consistently referred to as the HUD secretary, and the interview was conducted with the official HUD seal visible behind him. The interview began with a discussion of various HUD programs and initiatives.

Soon after, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the watchdog in charge of tracking such violations, investigated and released its findings that Mr. Castro violated the Hatch Act when he discussed politics and the upcoming general election.

At the time of the interview, Mr. Castro stated he believed he had acted appropriately. The OSC, however, questioned the credibility of that statement. Mr. Castro had received four briefings on the Hatch Act during his tenure, including one as recently as February 2016. Ethics officials at HUD also stated that they had specifically advised Mr. Castro how to handle political questions when he is speaking in his official capacity by stating that he is not there to talk about politics.

Such a high-profile violation of the Hatch Act is not a mere technical error. Condoning Hatch Act violations poses a serious threat to the legitimacy of our democratic system. And this was not the first time a cabinet member in the Obama administration has violated the Hatch Act.

In August 2012, the OSC found that Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, also violated the Hatch Act when she delivered the keynote speech at the Human Rights Campaign Gala in North Carolina on February 25, 2012. At the event, Ms. Sebelius explicitly acknowledged she was there “to represent the president and the Obama administration.” Later in her speech she said it was “imperative” that attendees “come together here in Charlotte to present the nomination to the president, [and to] make sure that in November he continues to be president for another four years.”

These were historic violations: No Cabinet secretary in any prior administration had been found in violation of the Hatch Act since its enactment under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Yet, neither Ms. Sebelius nor Mr. Castro suffered any consequences for abusing their positions. Ms. Sebelius went on to serve an additional two years in the president’s cabinet without any official repercussion or reprimand; Mr. Castro continues to serve as HUD secretary.

The president is the only person charged with holding cabinet officials accountable for violating the Hatch Act. His failure to sanction Ms. Sebelius sent a message that he does not take violations of the Hatch Act seriously. This could have no other effect than emboldening Mr. Castro to discuss partisan electoral politics without fear of consequences. Under the law, removal or suspension from office would be have been appropriate in his case, but the president — for the second time — chose not to impose any penalty.

In response to a question about the Ms. Sebelius Hatch Act violation, White House spokesman Eric Schultz stated that the Obama administration holds itself “to the highest ethical standards.” Those words ring hollow. Three years later, White House press secretary Josh Earnest responded to Mr. Castro’s violation stating that Mr. Castro “acknowledged the mistake he made” and that he “owned up to it.” But what really matters is whether he is held accountable, and to date, Mr. Castro has not been sanctioned for his unlawful act. Mr. Obama’s unwillingness to hold Ms. Sebelius or Mr. Castro accountable raises questions as to why other high-ranking Obama administration officials would have any incentive not to use their positions to influence elections.

This is even more concerning when you compare Mr. Castro and Ms. Sebelius’ treatment with that of lower-level government employees who violate the Hatch Act. In May, a U.S. Postal Service letter carrier settled with OSC after he displayed a congressional candidate’s sign on his work vehicle. He was subsequently suspended for five days without pay. Elsewhere, an IRS employee settled with OSC for violating the act. There is thus a double-standard for cabinet-level officials — they can apparently break the law with impunity.

The Obama administration is drawing to a close, but this pattern nonetheless sets a dangerous precedent. Our democracy is undermined when those with power and political influence are exempted from the consequences of their illegal actions. Let’s hope that years from now, the Obama administration is recalled as the low-water mark for ethics violations and accountability, not a sign of things to come.

Alfred J. Lechner Jr. is a former U.S. district judge for the District of New Jersey, and president and CEO of the Cause of Action Institute.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/20/partisan-politics-in-the-cabinet/

Filed Under: Media, News Tagged With: