Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (57169)	7/20/1999 5:07:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

July 20, 1999 Abuse and the IRS "Where is the abuse of power here? I mean, when we talk about the Nixon impeachment and the abuse of power, when the president uses his office to get the FBI to stop a--I mean, the CIA to stop an FBI investigation or gets the IRS to audit his political enemies--that is an abuse of power that threatens the people of this country and the operation of government." These were the words of Elizabeth Holtzman testifying December 8, 1998, before the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment of Bill Clinton. One does indeed recall the hue and cry that went up during the Clinton impeachment, on how the allegations about Bill Clinton were nothing compared with the allegations against Richard Nixon--political abuse of the IRS being perhaps the prime example. Ms. Holtzman mentioned the point several times during her testimony, and the White House counsel repeated it during its own defense. So do we now agree at least that using the IRS to harass political enemies ranks among the most serious abuses of power? Good. Because once we agree that a politicized IRS is a dangerous thing, it is hard to understand the see-no-evil approach taken by the Congress, the press and the judiciary about serious, current allegations of exactly this. For years at least, two organizations have been using the Freedom of Information Act to find out if there is anything to the extraordinary run of audits that happened to hit a number of tax-exempt organizations that might reasonably be described as Clinton enemies. And they have found two smoking guns. In its own suit seeking to depose IRS officer Terry Hallihan, Landmark Legal Foundation quotes a government official who was at an IRS meeting in San Francisco, where he alleges that Ms. Hallihan said she was aware that documents identifying the names of members of Congress and their staffers as the source of audit requests had been, or were being, shredded--and then went on to suggest ways to disguise future requests so that they did not appear to be coming from Congressmen. At the same time, a similar FOIA suit by one of the targets of these audits--Joseph Farah's Western Journalism Center--has turned up a Treasury Department report that states the audit began with a letter forwarded from the White House to the IRS. Note what we have here. To begin with, two specific accusations of political manipulation of the IRS, both with strong evidence. And in both cases an IRS fighting tooth and nail to prevent the real story, whatever it may be, from emerging. In Mr. Farah's case the Treasury Report, titled "Questionable Exempt Organization Examination Activity," came three years after he first filed suit for his IRS case file. Ditto for Landmark, which has yet to receive a direct answer to the simple question it first asked back in 1997: Who are the people who requested audits of tax-exempt organizations? We don't yet know for sure if anyone in the Clinton Administration or the IRS is targeting enemies for investigation. But we do know that many of these enemies were indeed audited. Mr. Farah's group, for example, was the only news outlet mentioned in a White House "action plan" on how to deal with Administration scandals. Though the author of the 1994 letter calling for an audit, Paul Venze of Beverly Hills, says the letter was his own idea, we don't know how it moved from the White House to the IRS. Likewise, we don't yet know whether Ms. Hallihan in fact said what she is accused of saying (though it is worth noting that the source also claims a tape was made of the meeting). But we do think there is more than enough reason for Judge Henry Kennedy to order Ms. Hallihan deposed and the rest of the IRS files opened up and released as Landmark asks. And while we're at it, what about the report from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which investigated these matters a few years back and then disappeared without telling us what it found? As the debate in the run-up to Bill Clinton's impeachment trial made clear, Nixon will forever be associated with illegal use of the IRS--even though the then-IRS largely withstood his political pressure. Today, by contrast, we have lots of Clinton enemies who have suffered actual audits, and very little interest in finding out whether this was simply a massive coincidence or the result of something more sinister. We already have Ms. Holtzman and the White House counsel on record as saying these are serious matters. Now we have evidence of an audit request that made its way from the White House to the IRS, along with an IRS official quoted as saying she knew of audit documents being shredded. This suggests to us powerful incentive for a more aggressive inquiry. If the IRS isn't guilty, why is it fighting so hard not to open up its files and have Ms. Hallihan answer these questions under oath? Before we "move on," shouldn't someone first order the IRS to move it up? interactive.wsj.com

To: DMaA who wrote (57169)	7/20/1999 5:51:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Senator Calls Out 'The Bankroll' By DAVID ESPO Associated Press Writer Sen. Russ Feingold Associated Press/Morry Gash [18K] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Russ Feingold stood at his desk on the Senate floor during a recent debate on health care legislation, and pointed out that the insurance industry had made more than $3.4 million in campaign contributions in the 1997-1998 election season. ''The calling of the bankroll,'' the Wisconsin Democrat calls it, and he has made similar points about big money donations on bills dealing with gun control, defense spending and other topics in recent weeks. It is an unprecedented attempt to connect the dots between the contributions that flow to lawmakers and the votes they cast, and thus build support for an overhaul of the campaign finance system. ''We know, if we are honest with ourselves, that campaign contributions are involved in virtually everything this body does,'' he said in mid-June. ''Campaign money is the 800-pound gorilla in this chamber every day that nobody talks about, but that cannot be ignored.'' The effort to ban so-called soft money and make other changes to the costly campaign finance system is expected to return to the Senate floor this week. Feingold's co-sponsor, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said over the weekend he would try to force votes on the issue. The bill is opposed by most Republicans and supported by most Democrats. It would ban soft money, which is the unlimited donations that political parties covet. It also would curtail so-called issue ads, which customarily attack a candidate without specifically calling for his defeat. Republicans generally oppose a ban on soft money, saying it would place them at a disadvantage given the large union expenditures each election cycle on behalf of Democratic candidates. ''If we could do something about the fact that unions take union members money without their permission. If could do it in a level way, that would be something we could consider,'' Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said in a weekend interview on Fox Sunday. ''But the McCain-Feingold bill is not the solution,'' said Lott, R-Miss. In fact it would cause all kinds of problems and would be basically unilateral disarmament by the Republicans and by the parties in this country.'' The bill was killed by a Republican filibuster last year, and gridlock is likely again. Asked recently whether any senatorial minds had been changed in the intervening months, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and a foe of the bill, said, ''Not that I know of.'' It remains unclear whether Feingold's gambit will have an impact on the fate of the bill. Feingold is an independent-minded Democrat who gained notice last year for demanding that his own party stop airing campaign commercials designed to help him win re-election. In an interview, he said he had received ''a little ribbing about'' his new tactics in the effort to overhaul the campaign finance system. ''I've been careful to talk about both sides,'' he said, adding he hopes his practice will become ''part of the legislative process.'' That's unlikely, given that lawmakers like to cite deeply-held principles to explain their actions, not such crass considerations as contributions. Yet Feingold insists lawmakers should be aware ''of what a huge stake the industry has in stopping this legislation, and how they have used the campaign finance system to protect their interests....'' He said ''managed care giant United Health Care Corp. gave $305,000 in soft money to the parties, and $65,000 in PAC money to candidates.'' In addition, ''Blue Cross-Blue Shield's national association gave more than $200,000 in soft money and nearly $350,000 in PAC money....'' Earlier, with the Senate debating legislation to curtail lawsuits over computer-related problems in the new millennium, Feingold called the bankroll on competing interests. The computer and electronics industry gave more than $5.7 million in PAC and soft money contributions in the 1997-1998 election cycle, he said. The nation's trial lawyers funneled $2.8 million in donations. On May 20, the subject was gun control. Feingold told his colleagues that senators who voted against tightening controls had received an average of over $10,400 in donations from the National Rifle Association and other gun groups, while those who opposed the provision averaged $297. And when legislation reached the Senate dealing with the control of interstate shipments of waste, Feingold said interests that oppose the measure contributed $422,275 in soft money to both political parties, $85,000 to the Democrats and $337,000 to the GOP.