The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: investigate

Dark-Money Political Groups Are Probably Violating Tax Laws

The world of dark-money politics may soon get a little brighter, if the IRS agrees to investigate a number of nonprofit political groups associated with political action committees and Super PACs.

The groups that are almost certainly violating tax law are nonprofits known as 501(c)(4) groups, after the section of the tax code that governs their behavior. They are very similar to 501(c)(3) groups, which are typical nonprofit charities, with one important difference: while 501(c)(3) groups are legally prohibited from interfering in politics, 501(c)(4) groups are allowed to make political contributions as long as it’s not their “principle purpose.”

501(c)(4) organizations are officially considered “social welfare organizations,” not political organizations, but that hasn’t stopped many 501(c)(4)s from engaging in politics. In fact, many 501(c)(4)s exist only to funnel money to Super PACs that run political advertisements supporting or opposing political candidates and policies. They’re like shell corporations, only they’re nonprofits that can accept tax-deductible donations. And unlike a Super PAC, which can accept unlimited corporate donations but must publicly disclose its donors to the Federal Elections Commission, a 501(c)(4) — since it’s not considered a primarily political organization — never has to register with the Federal Elections Commission or disclose the names of the individuals and corporations that fund it.

Unsurprisingly, many political operatives have seen the value in being able to accept unlimited corporate donations without telling the public, and many 501(c)(4)s have been set up to shield the identities of donors to Super PACs. For instance, Karl Rove’s Super PAC, American Crossroads, is associated with the 501(c)(4) group Crossroads GPS, and Priorities USA Action, a Super PAC focused on Barack Obama’s re-election, is associated with the 501(c)(4) group Priorities USA.

It seems these 501(c)(4) groups are breaking the law, since their primary purpose is to interfere in politics, and they could conceivably be prosecuted by the IRS. Last week, campaign finance watchdogs Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center sent a letter to the IRS urging them to investigate these 501(c)(4) groups and others like them. Last October, Sen. Dick Durbin sent a similar letter to the IRS, and in April, longtime campaign finance advocate and former Sen. Russ Feingold called the creation of Priorities Action USA akin to “playing with fire.”

Recently, satirist Stephen Colbert mocked the close ties between political groups like Super PACS and supposedly non-political 501(c)(4) organizations. In a segment on his show (which can be viewed below), Colbert sets up a 501(c)(4) named SHHH! to funnel money to his SuperPAC, Americans For A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. His lawyer, Trevor Potter, reminds him that, legally, his 501(c)(4) organization’s “principle purpose for spending its money” cannot be politics. “No, my principle purpose is an educational entity,” Colbert replies, “I want to educate the public that gay people cause earthquakes.”

He later seems shocked that what he has just done is legal. He asks, “I can take secret donations from my [501](c)(4) and give it to my supposedly transparent Super PAC…what is the difference between that and money laundering?” Potter can only reply that “it’s hard to say.” Unfortunately for many political 501(c)(4)s, the IRS may soon come to the same conclusion.

Bill o reilly's ex wife and the Jeff Gross

Bill O’Reilly Bullies Police Officer Dating His Ex-Wife

On Tuesday, investigative reporter John Cook reported on the Gawker website that Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly had pushed his local police department to investigate an officer who allegedly dated O’Reilly’s wife while they were separated.

Cook reports that Richard Harasym, an Internal Affairs detective in the Nassau County Police Department in O’Reilly’s hometown, was ordered to help O’Reilly’s private detectives investigate an officer in the department who was romantically involved with O’Reilly’s wife, Maureen O’Reilly (nee McPhilmy). The commissioner of the police department at the time, Lawrence Mulvey, is described as a friend of O’Reilly’s and was allegedly expecting him to make a large donation to the police department’s nonprofit organization. After declining that assignment, Harasym was reportedly transferred out of the Internal Affairs department. Gawker’s sources say that he was transferred because he refused to help O’Reilly.

Internal Affairs is intended to investigate police misconduct, and dating a married woman — though perhaps immoral — is not police misconduct. And the officer in question may not have even been dating a married woman. O’Reilly’s nephew, according to Cook, mentioned to staffers at Fox News that McPhilmy started dating the officer while she and O’Reilly were already in a trial separation. Indeed, McPhilmy bought a house under her maiden name last year, and O’Reilly has not been wearing his wedding ring this year — suggesting that they intend to split up, if they haven’t already.

It’s not hard to see why McPhilmy and O’Reilly may have decided to call it quits. In 2004, O’Reilly was accused of sexually harassing Andrea Mackris, a young producer on his Fox News show The O’Reilly Factor. Among other things, he allegedly called Mackris on the phone and told her steamy sexual fantasies — including one involving falafel — while masturbating with a vibrator. The parties later settled out of court.

But it wasn’t all fun and games. When Mackris considered exposing O’Reilly’s harassment, he allegedly threatened to enlist his Fox News connections to ruin her life:

“If you cross Fox News Channel, it’s not just me, it’s [Fox President] Roger Ailes who will go after you. … I’m the street guy out front making loud noises about the issues, but Ailes operates behind the scenes, strategizes and makes things happen so that one day BAM! The person gets what’s coming to them but never sees it happen. Look at [prominent Fox News critic] Al Franken, one day he’s going to get a knock on his door and life as he’s known it will change forever. That day will happen, trust me.”

O’Reilly and Fox have been known to retaliate against critics in the past. A few years ago, O’Reilly warned a caller on his radio show, “We have your phone number, and we’re going to turn it over to Fox security, and you’ll be getting a little visit. … Fox security then will contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable.” And after a New York Times journalist reported that Fox News had lower-than-expected ratings, rumors began to surface that he had spent time in rehab before writing the article.

Fox still appears to be in the business of intimidation, judging by their numerous on-air attacks against John Cook and his employer, Gawker. But Cook says he’s not worried about retaliation from Fox News. “I’ve never been to rehab or anything like that,” he says, “and there’s nothing they can say that will embarrass Gawker.” Moreover, he says, “They just want this to go away, and if they know that if they do anything to us, we’ll just write about it.” The one thing that Cook expects from O’Reilly is an interview. “O’Reilly has a history of sending out producers to stop people and get ambush interviews,” Cook says. “I’m prepared for that.”