Listed below are some of the articles discussing the IG Report and other developments:

USA Today, IRS approved liberal groups while Tea party in limbo

Washington Post, IG Report: ‘Inappropriate criteria’ stalled IRS approvals of conservative groups

POLITICO, The IRS wants you — to share everything

POLITICO, 5 takeaways from IRS Report

The New York Times, IRS says counsel did not tell Treasury of Tea Party scrutiny

CNN, Source: Two rogue workers principally behind IRS targeting of conservative groups

The Hill, Top Dem tax writer Levin calls for IRS officials to resign

The Hill, Obama summons top Treasury officials to discuss IRS scandal

Listed below are some of the recent articles covering the IRS scandal:

ProPublica, IRS office that targeted Tea Party also disclosed confidential docs from conservative groups

The Atlantic, Congress put pressure on IRS to investigate conservative tax exempt groups

Washington Post, IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

National Journal, A guide to the IRS sacandal — what happened and when did it happen

This scandal has legs and is one to watch very closely.  Some of the issues I will be watching is whether the conservative IRS filings were flagged for targeting as they arrived at the IRS or did the IRS also go back and engage in data mining for conservative group filings that were already in the pipeline for processing by this group IRS employees and officials?  Will the IRS IG Report that apparently is set to be released this week focus specifically on the exempt organizations application unit or did the investigation involve other IRS units?  One thing seems clear: this is the beginning of the beginning of this scandal.

Listed below are a sample of articles discussing this scandal:

ABC News, IRS IG Report: targeting conservatives began in 2010

Washington Post, IRS targeted groups critical of government, documents from agency probe show

POLITICO, Report: IRS targeted debt, spending groups

Wall Street Journal, Wider problems found at IRS

Election Law Blog, Bipartisan calls for investigation in IRS case, but where are the reform groups? 

More Soft Money Hard Law, On the IRS’s current problems — and the problem with the law of tax exempt politics

 Fox News, IRS scrutiny went beyond Tea Party, targeting of conservative groups broader than thought

The Federal Election Commission’s summary of the litigation can be found here.

Below is a list of articles discussing the latest campaign finance case accepted by the Roberts Court:

New York Times

Roll Call

Washington Post

Election Law Blog

SCOTUSblog

Roll Call also published a story discussing many of the proposed reforms discussed in my op-ed.

UPDATE:  The Democratic Commissioners just made a motion to initiate a rulemaking in response to the federal court’s order.  The motion failed along party lines — the three Democratic Commissioners voted in favor of the rulemaking motion and the three Republican Commissioners voted against it.  As a result, Chairman Hunter declared that the FEC will defend the current regulation.

Well, today’s appellate court decision contains some interesting statements that should spark robust debates in campaign finance circles. 

First, the court states that it cannot divine the FEC’s position on fundamental issues in the case because the FEC did not participate as a party to the appeal.  Specifically, the court stated:

The FEC’s failure to participate in this appeal makes it impossible for the court to fully understand the agency’s position on numerous issues that have been raised by the parties with respect to the meaning of the statute, the intended reach of the disputed regulation, and the import of the Supreme Court’s decisions addressing campaign finance law.

Today’s decision by the federal appellate court reverses the lower court’s decision, vacates the summary judgment handed down by the lower court in favor of Congressman Van Hollen, and remands the case to the District Court.  The District Court must now refer the matter to the FEC for further consideration.  The FEC can either initiate a new rulemaking or better explain the meaning and scope of the challenged regulation. 

The court has placed the ball squarely in the FEC’s court.  In all likelihood, however, this issue will not be resolved anytime soon by the FEC and it remains to be seen whether the FEC will issue any press releases or other guidance in the wake of today’s developments.  The issues in this case are important.  The regulated community is entitled to clear guidance from the FEC, especially since it did not participate in the appeal.  With less than two months to go before the November general election, the Commission now has the obligation to publish clear guidance so that groups sponsoring advertisements subject to the disputed regulation have clear notice concerning the disclosure requirements.

Second, the appellate court signaled that the FEC needs to explain this regulation in the wake of the recent Supreme Court campaign finance decisions that have changed the political ecosystem.

After reviewing the record with care, we conclude that the District Court erred in holding that Congress spoke plainly when it enacted 2 U.S.C. 434(f), thus foreclosing any regulatory construction of the statute by the FEC.  The statute is anything but clear, especially when viewed in the light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. FEC, and FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc.  (citations omitted)

The court’s reference to Citizens United is an interesting one in light of the fact that the FEC has failed to adopt a rulemaking implementing the Supreme Court’s holding in that case.  It’s also interesting since the Citizens United decision was handed down approximately three years after the challenged FEC regulation was adopted.  Interesting tea leaf for folks who follow these matters.

 Finally, the court’s decision poses another interesting question that should not go unnoticed.  Specifically, the court wonders:

The FEC promulgation of 11 C.F.R. 104.20(c)(9) reflects an attempt by the agency to provide regulatory guidance under the BCRA following the partial invalidation of the speech prohibition imposed on corporations and labor unions in the context of “electioneering communications.”  Unfortunately, the parties arguments in this case have revealed, the angency’s adoption of section 104.20(c)(9) has raised as many questions as it purported to resolve.  For example, neither the court nor the parties understand the reference to 11 C.F.R. 114.15 in section 104.20(c)(9).

11 C.F.R. 114.15 is the regulation setting forth the definition of a permissible electioneering communication and an electioneering communication in the wake of the WRTL II.  Could the court be signalling that permissible electioneering communications, which under the Supreme Court’s holding are issue ads and not campaign-related, be subject to lesser or no disclosure requirements, or should they somehow be treated in an entirely different manner?  This will be an interesting issue to watch as this matter unfolds.

I know it has been a while since my last post so here are some articles discussing the federal district court’s decision in Van Hollen v. FEC, one of the reformers’ efforts to impose greater regulations on political speakers.

Campaign Donor Advertising Rule Invalidated By U.S. Judge, Bloomberg

FEC Ruling Leaves Ad Uncertainty, Roll Call

Also, an interesting FEC advisory opinion request was filed by an organization called Free Speech.  The request, identified as FEC AOR 2012-11, seeks guidance from the Commission regarding whether the organization is a political committee that is required to register and report to the FEC and whether specific ads constitute express advocacy.  This is one to watch.