The Political Theatre of Tax Exempt Foreign Election Interference

House Republicans have their backs up again.  It seems that Democrats blocked a bill that would have imposed a 200% penalty on exempt organizations with PAC spending if the organization received foreign gifts or contributions during the past 8 years. The No Foreign Election Interference Act would have also authorized revocation upon a third offense.  The bill responds to universally voiced concern about foreign interference and had bipartisan support on Ways and Means.  But its proposal, committee approval and then ultimate rejection presents political theatre.  

Pretty much everybody supports the idea theoretically. We all think foreigners are interfering in our elections to support the other candidate or to oppose our candidate. But the Ways and Means Republicans outsmarted themselves, creating a legislative record of fifth columns through hearings demonizing only the foreign funders of progressive nonprofit causes, like climate change or green energy. They threw in accusations about China for good measure, some probably true.  But the Republicans' poster child for all this nefarious foreign interference is a Hansjorg Wyss, a billionaire who actually supports increasing the estate tax. Here and in Switzerland, that's how progressive this guy is.  Hell, the guy doesn't even live overseas.  He is a Swiss citizen but the billionaire tree hugger lives in Wyoming and California, on ranches in both states.  And he gives a boatload of money to Democrats.  That's what this is really about. 

Anyway, here is what the Republicans said after the vote:

On Tuesday, House Democrats voted on behalf of foreign actors funneling money into U.S. elections by opposing the No Foreign Election Interference Act (H.R. 8314). The legislation – which previously was approved by the Ways and Means Committee with near unanimous support – prohibits tax-exempt (TE) organizations from accepting donations from foreign sources and then donating to Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs). Every Democrat from the Ways and Means Committee who voted to oppose this commonsense policy to protect the integrity of U.S. elections previously voted in favor of the legislation in the Committee.

Here is part of a Bloomberg report giving the straight face to Democrats' spin:

The No Foreign Election Interference Act was approved nearly unanimously by the House Ways and Means Committee on May 15. A majority of the committee's Democrats who previously voted for the bill voted against the proposal Tuesday. Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Ala., was the sole committee Democrat to maintain her vote in favor of the measure.

Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., said Tuesday that the bill's intent and spirit were well-intentioned, but that it would have many unintended and harmful consequences. In its current form, it would unfairly hurt American workers and the unions that represent them, she said.  The bill doesn't define a contribution or gift or contain any reasonable cause exception, Sanchez said.

"I'm particularly concerned about the severe penalties the bill would impose on organizations that have international members and make political contributions," Sanchez said. "This bill is opposed by unions, including the AFL-CIO, which represents 60 affiliation unions and 12.5 million workers." Labor unions don't have a role in who is hired, but they are obligated to represent all workers in their bargaining units, Sanchez said. If union dues are considered a contribution or gift and the dues are received from a noncitizen, the bill would restrict the union's right to donate to a political committee, she said.

"It's imperative they be able to advocate on behalf of workers and fully engage in the political process," Sanchez said. "Since the bill only applies to nonprofits, for-profit corporations don't face the same danger." House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., said on the House floor Tuesday that the bill's provisions would apply to contributions and gifts to tax-exempt organizations that then make donations to super PACs, not program service revenue or member dues.

That makes sense, those definitional issues by the way.  But why wasn't this brought up and worked out in Committee? Or if not that, why didn't the Democrats vote against it in committee? Probably because the Republicans didn't invite the Democrats to help write the bill, and the Democrats didn't want to vote against the bill until the most politically opportune time or until they absolutely had to.  Dems can say they oppose foreign interference, but the bill is poorly drafted.  Republicans can say its well drafted and Dems are supporting foreign interference.  All this theatre because of a rich Swiss guy who has lived in Wyoming most of his life, owns a 900 acre ranch in California and donates a lot money to save the environment.  

darryll k. jones