In January 2010, the United States Supreme Court in the Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission case broadly upheld the Constitution’s First Amendment rights to free speech by preventing the government from limiting corporations, unions, associations and individuals ability to donate to political causes and issues. This, plus the Speech/Now.org versus Federal Election Commission ruling resulted in the formation of Super PACs that, as of May 2, 2013, numbered 1,310 with reported total receipts of $828,224,595 and total independent expenditures of $609,417,654. The two largest conservative Super PACs are Restore Our Future with $153,741,731 and American Crossroads with $117,472,407 and the largest liberal Super Pac is Priorities USA Action with $79,050,419.

The best known tax exempt charitable organizations are 501(c) 3 entities that are either charities or foundations to which you may make tax deductible donations.  These 501 (c) 3 charities are prohibited from political campaign activism.  In addition to these 501 (c) 3 charities, there are more than twenty-five 501(c) IRS designations for tax-exempt organizations that cannot accept tax-deductible donations. Most notable is the 501(c) 4 designation for ‘social welfare agencies’ in which political activism is not prohibited and there is no requirement for public disclosure of the donations, donors or funding sources.

The guidelines for 501(c) 4 social welfare organizations are extremely fuzzy. They may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to their programs. And, unlike 501(c) 3 charitable organizations, they may also participate in an indirect fashion with political campaigns and elections, as long as its ‘primary activity’ is the promotion of social welfare. Additionally, 501(c) (4) organizations are not permitted to coordinate their efforts and interventions with a political campaign or state directly, ‘vote for candidate so-and-so’. In layman’s terms, their political activities must maintain a degree of arm’s length and build a case around causes that a specified candidate may or may not support.

As we all know, the Citizens United decision caused massive amounts of dollars to flow into the political process of choosing our elected representatives. The unrelenting and distasteful attack ads during the 2012 campaign from both conservative and liberal viewpoints bear testimony to these huge infusions of capital.

To avoid public scrutiny and remain anonymous, many large corporations, unions and individual donors preferred giving their ‘unlimited’ donations to 501 (c) 4 social welfare agencies. This increased the submission of Forms 1024 and Schedule B to seek 501 (c) 4 ‘social welfare’ status from the IRS fivefold and, in the process, overwhelmed the small cadre of IRS screeners in the nonprofit division that numbered just 942 in 2010.

Certainly, any filters or search terms that the IRS used to unfairly single out or profile applications for review, harassment or delays based upon party affiliation is contrary to IRS policy and warrants investigation and prosecution. The underlying question is whether the profiling to sort out applications for review was politically motivated and an IRS policy that came from more senior IRS officials.

Historically, before the Citizens United decision catapulted 501(c) 4 social welfare organizations into the headlines, these organizations were just civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of ‘social welfare’, such as civics and civics issues, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. A prime example is AARP, an organization that promotes the social welfare of our senior citizens.

The Citizens United decision has severely crippled our political system and leveraged the monetary clout of big business, lobbyists, affluence and special interest groups to exert disproportionate influence in the makeup of our Federal, State and local governments.

Even more troubling are other unintended consequences. Both Republican and Democratic politicians are held hostage by this large cache of money that opaquely flows to those candidates that brainlessly adhere to and do not deviate from the party gospel. Money has always guided the political process, but the new ‘normal’ flood of special agenda money, has fueled the epidemic of polarization and legislative gridlock within our Government. The old expression; ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ can be a metaphor for this unfortunate development.

Campaign finance reform has been on the table for a long time with bills such as the McCain-Feingold bill. But now, there is so much money sloshing around from so many directions in our campaigns that reform of any type is inconceivable. The Citizens United case has made a mockery of a fair electoral system.

It would be nonsensical to suggest that IRS misconduct played a role in the outcome of the 2012 election. I know one of the IRS agents in Cincinnati and he has impressed me as a hardworking civil servant with integrity and dedication to his demanding job.