Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse floor speech.

In a Senate floor speech this afternoon, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) criticized the IRS for targeting conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny, but also called on his colleagues to pay attention to a second, less visible "scandal" of tax-exempt organizations filing false statements "with impunity."

In the first scandal, the Treasury Inspector General report found the IRS unit tasked with evaluating applications for 501(c)4 tax-exempt status improperly targeted groups with names like "tea party." While the IG's report specifically notes that only "first-line management" in a Cincinnati office were responsible for developing the screening criteria, late today, the fallout cost the acting IRS Commissioner his job.

But that's not what brought Whitehouse to the floor today. In a 14-minute speech (YouTube, text), the senator chided both the IRS and the Department of Justice for failing to adequately enforce rules governing activities permitted tax-exempt social welfare groups under 501(c)4 status.

Part of the problem, Whitehouse said, lies with the IRS, who "decided that an organization is organized 'exclusively' for the promotion of social welfare if it is 'primarily' engaged in social welfare activities, that 'primarily' means 51%, and that the other 49% can be purely political." That slim majority, Whitehouse said, often comprises "educational" or "legislative" activities "that are really just the same political ads given another name."

Making it even worse — and what clearly got under this former prosecutor's skin — is that these same organizations sometimes filed conflicting reports with the Federal Elections Commission.

Citing data from ProPublica, the Pulitzer-winning nonpartisan investigative news site, Whitehouse noted that in almost a third of the cases reviewed, there were discrepancies. "[ProPublica] looked at 104 organizations that had reported electioneering activity to the Federal Election Commission or state equivalents, saying 'here is what we spent on elections.'  ProPublica cross-checked; 32 of them had told the IRS they spent no money to influence elections, either directly or indirectly.  Both statements cannot be true."

One group, he said, "declared to the IRS it had spent $5 million on political activities, but told the FEC it had spent $19 million on political ads.  Another pledged its political spending would be 'limited in amount and will not constitute the organization's primary purpose,' and then went out and spent $70 million on ads and robocalls in one election season."

"Making a material false statement to a federal agency is not just bad behavior, it's a crime," said Whitehouse. "It is a statutory offense under 18 U.S. Code Section 1001."

However, said Whitehouse, unless the IRS specifically refers a case to the Department of Justice, there's no attempt to hold groups accountable. And those referrals, he said, just aren't happening. "Apparently, no matter how flagrant the false statement, no matter how great the discrepancy between the statements filed at the IRS and the statements filed at the election agencies, no matter how baldly the organization in practice contradicts how it answered IRS questions about political activity, the IRS never makes a referral to the Department of Justice."

"Right now, organizations lie with impunity, and in large numbers," said Whitehouse.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and challenger Barry Hinckley at WPRI debate.

In a one-hour debate heavy on substance and policies, RI Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse articulated his position as a reasonable legislator and champion of the middle class, while challenger Barry Hinckley staked out the turf of a tax-cutting free-marketeer. Moderator Tim White of WPRI was joined by panelists Ted Nesi and Providence Journal reporter Ed Fitzpatrick, and they kept the discussion moving and focused.

Hinckley ran out of time in his opening statement in his rush get in a snarky comment about his position on stage: "I'm little uncomfortable being to your left — I didn't think that was possible." He then spent the rest of his time attacking Obamacare as a "2000-page entitlement program" and saluting unrestrained capitalism.

The Roberts decision on Obamacare was the Supreme Court decision he mentioned when asked which one he'd like to overturn, and he identified his favorite justice as Clarence Thomas.

"The problem with Social Security," Hinckley said, "is that it's managed by the government, not actuaries." If it were turned over to actuaries, he argued, "It could be solved in an afternoon."

He totally dismissed public education. "The government has had a monopoly on primary and secondary education," and was doing such a poor job that he proposed vouchers, which he compared to Pell Grants. "If it's a grant for college, why wouldn't it be a grant [for elementary education]?"

Whitehouse, by contrast, reinforced the need to invest in American workers ("Innovation, manufacturing, and infrastructure — that's where I've put a lot of my work.") and protect middle-class families.

Rather than cutting Medicare benefits, Whitehouse stressed the importance of moderating the growth of health care costs. He noted progress by providers like Rhode Island's Coastal Medical, which recently became a participant in the Medicare Shared Savings program. Whitehouse warned about the effects of "extreme" Republican budgets like the Ryan plan that would impact Medicaare.

He chided Congressional Republicans for refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts for income less than $250K. "They're objecting to it because it lets the middle class 'get away.'" At the same time, he noted, local companies like CVS are paying a 35% tax rate, while corporations like Carnival Cruises, GE, and oil companies take advantage of loopholes. "We need a tax code that's fairer and simpler," he said, but stressed that any changes had to be done "in the context of the deficit."

When asked for a Supreme Court decision he would overturn, Whitehouse cited Citizens United, and he said he admired Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

While Hinckley closed with yet another business pitch ("Wipe away the labels D and R," he said. "I signed over 15k paychecks. I know what goes into a paycheck.") Whithouse reiterated his commitment to defend Medicare and Social Security and protect the middle class from "tax schemes." Said Whitehouse, "I will keep the faith with you on these issues."

Full disclosure: In case it's not obvious, I'm a Democrat and a supporter of Sen. Whitehouse. But despite my admitted Democratic blind spot, I just have no clue how anyone could equate Pell Grants with school vouchers. That is either ignorant of how education funding works, or calculatedly cynical. And turning social security over to unchecked market forces? "Solved in an afternoon?" Brrr. It really struck me, listening to Hinckley, just exactly how much government is *not* a business. I don't want my retirement security appearing as the highlighted cell of low-hanging fruit in some CFO's spreadsheet. I don't want a *boss,* I want a Senator.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse speaks with Portsmouth seniors.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse stopped by the Portsmouth Senior Center this afternoon to talk with more than two dozen senior citizens gathered for lunch. Before spending time individually with the folks at every table, Whitehouse offered a few brief remarks on commonly asked questions about the future of Social Security and Medicare.

"On Social Security, I want you to know we're doing okay," said Whitehouse, adding that he was one of the first members the Senate's "Social Security Caucus" who have all pledged to protect the program. "We have about 30 members now," Whitehouse said, which was large enough that "cuts have gone off the table."

The situation on Medicare, however, was more challenging. "House Republicans passed a budget that would have gotten rid of Medicare in ten years," said Whitehouse. "I think that's a terrible mistake, and I'm going to fight hard to keep that from happening."

Whitehouse acknowledged that there are ways to save money in the program, including fraud reduction and managing insurance company excesses. But he reassured seniors that he would fight any efforts to target benefits. In a line that drew applause from the room, Whitehouse said, "My motto is 'No Social Security cuts; no Medicare benefit cuts."

Full disclosure: I support the Senator's fight for our seniors (and the other great work he does.)

Whitehouse shows citizen support

After Republicans blocked debate on the DISCLOSE Act yesterday afternoon, Senate Democrats, led by Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse, held the floor for over six hours to discuss the problems with secret money in elections and the merits of their proposal to require large-dollar donors to be identified.

Around midnight, Whitehouse took to the podium to deliver a summation, and he did it in a style that recalled his years as a prosecutor, reminding Americans that they should be asking who benefits, and suggesting attention to the motives of donors who wished to hide. "Americans get that you don't spend this kind of money without a motive," said Whitehouse.

Questioning motives was a recurring theme all night, as sponsors of the bill (text here) argued that the only reason for secrecy was an agenda at odds with the interests of everyday Americans. Said Ohio's Sherrod Brown, "Under Citizens United what we have is a sale. It's not an election."

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley shows the new Constitution

Oregon's Sen. Jeff Merkley had a simple graphic that captured the essence: a rewrite of the Constitution for the post-Citizens United world. With $1Billion in secret money bankrolling campaign ads this year, he argued, the voice of the people has been diluted. "It's become 'We the powerful,'" said Merkley. Whitehouse argued that it turned free speech on its head: "You [now] have a constitutional right to listen when big money speaks." RI's other senator, Jack Reed, put it plainly: "The Supreme Court created a situation where effective speech is no longer free."

But really, what's so terrible about corporations spending unlimited amounts of money on negative ads? At the most fundamental level, it tilts the playing field. "A few can go into a corner and be cloaked," said Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA). "Americans want robust debate," said Reed, not candidates who "engage through surrogates." Mark Pryor (D-AR) compared it to the contributions of everyday voters, who might give a candidate $5, or $20, or maybe a hundred dollars, compared to a corporation willing to sink $1M into a super PAC. "I don't want the secret voice to be 10,000 times louder," said Pryor.

And the solution is a simple measure: disclosure. Require every entity (and that means everyone, whether corporations, super PACs, unions, billionaires, NGOs, everybody) that drops $10K on advocacy to report the names of donors. No limits on speech, no caps on spending, just disclosure.

In addition to just being fair ("If the average citizen is subject to disclosure, why not a super PAC," asked Bob Menendez (D-NJ)), putting a name to donations encourages responsibility. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) quoted Justice Antonin Scalia, "Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage."

In fact, the Supreme Court, in Citizens United, specifically anticipated the need for disclosure to ensure that unlimited dollars wouldn't taint the electoral process. "The Supreme Court said that we can force these organizations to disclose," said Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), quoting from Justice Kennedy's majority opinion. "My colleagues and I have simply taken Justice Kennedy's words to heart." The purpose of the DISCLOSE Act, said Reed, was simply to "give the Court what it thought it had."

Senate Democrats plan another attempt today at breaking the cloture logjam and getting the Republicans to actually debate the bill. It's worth noting which senators are siding with the American people, and which are siding with the big-money special interests.

If you have a few minutes, it's worth reading the whole Twitter stream from last night.

Full disclosure: I'm a supporter of transparency and Sheldon Whitehouse.

John Jackson, Kenneth Bernstein, and Diane Ravitch at the "War on public education" panel

Nearly 3,000 bloggers, activists, and political folks descended on the RI Convention center this weekend for a packed schedule of panels, trainings, and workshops on a wide range of political, organizational, and social issues. Rhode Island was well represented at the major events, with popular sessions featuring local progressives from MERI, PPRI, OSA, NEARI, and RIACLU, and local political stars both established (Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse led a great panel on Citizens United) and up-and-coming (State Rep. Teresa Tanzi spoke at the closing keynote right before Gov. Howard Dean.) You can find archived videos at the Netroots Nation site and browse the extensive livetweeting at the Twitter hashtag #NN12. I'm only going to report on the specific panels — for the keynotes, you really should check out the videos on the Netroots Nation site.

Couldn't get there Thursday, so for me, the conference began at 8:30 on Friday, when I got to the exhibit hall for my shift seting up the National Writers Union booth. It was great to meet the staff from the national office and hang out and talk shop for a while. If you're a fellow blogger or freelancer, you should check out the NWU.

The first panel (watch) went from zero to 60 in seconds. With John Jackson (Schott Foundation), teacher Kenneth Bernstein, and education theorist Diane Ravitch, the panelists framed the current situation frankly. "The narrative is that public education is broken," said Ravitch, arguing that the "shock doctrine" was at work in service of forces seeking privatization. "The other piece is attacks on teachers," she said. "If you say it's wrong, you're accused of being a shill for the unions." Jackson described the situation in even more bleak terms: "We're in the season of re-litigating America." He urged calling out not only the "wolves" like ALEC, but also "those in sheep's clothing like Stand for Children." To which Ravitch added, "Or 50 CAN."

If you're wondering what "50 CAN"is, look in this week's Sakonnet Times for the quarter-page ad from their local affiliate, RI-CAN, advocating a change to the state law on mandatory layoff notice dates for teachers. How is it that 501(c)3 organizations can get away with political advocacy? By calling it "education." And guess what? They don't have to disclose their donors. Sweet, huh?

There was a great question from an audience member who worked at a local charter school, prompting Ravitch to offer a nuanced perspective. "We need a typology of charters," she said, that separates the truly public schools that serve local students versus the hedge-fund corporate entities.

Moderator Tom Perriello and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse at the Citizens United panel

The panel on Citizens United (watch) was full of heavy hitters: Sen. Whitehouse, Sen. Sherrod Brown, Sen. Jeff Merkley, CREDO Action's Becky Bond, and Trevor Potter, Stephen Colbert's SuperPAC advisor. Whitehouse kicked off the discussion and he tore into the the Court's decision. "The entire decision hangs on something the Supreme Court is not supposed to do: findings of fact," said Whitehouse. "Citizens United is in the tradition of Lochner v NY and Plessy v. Ferguson," decisions which were widely seen as wrong. "When the Supreme Court makes a mistake," he said, "There is a tendency for it to correct."

Bond attacked the ruling as really being "Billionaires United," and urged that we need to make "people bigger than money." (One way is to join with Credo Action to help take down the Tea Party Ten.) Potter pointed out how Colbert had created his own SuperPAC and 501(c)4 to show the craziness of the system, and wondered about the utility of a constitutional amendment. "When you amend the Constitution," he said, "The Supreme Court still interprets your amendment."

Sen. Merkley asked the packed ballroom of digital activists to consider an "all night blog-in" when Sen. Whitehouse re-introduces the DISCCLOSE Act in July. By the end of the session, there were dozens of bloggers, scribbling frantically on a list that staffers were maintaining at the dais. I'm pretty sure that when DISCLOSE goes to the floor and inevitable filibuster ensues and they roll out the cots, there will be a solid presence in the blogosphere alongside them. I signed up.

Isham Christie, Yotam Marom, Michelle Crentsil, Mary Clinton, Max Berger.

The final Friday panel was "That will never work: What we can learn from OWS" (watch) with words of wisdom from folks who were on the ground in the planning and encampment phases of Occupy Wall Street in NYC. Christie ascribed some of the success to "radical humility" and a willingness to just "try this crazy-ass idea." He admitted that at times, they were, of necessity, in way over their heads. "The only way is to scare the shit out of ourselves," he said. "If we're not scaring ourselves, we're probably not scaring those in power."

Crentsil praised the openness and horizontalism that was achieved, but acknowledged that it "obscured some struggles." For Clinton, the lack of concrete demands was an enabler, and the notion of "Wall Street is all streets" provided a common thread that multiple struggles could identify with. Going forward, Marom noted that achieving results that improved things was important, but the movement needed to continue to look beyond for "wins that increase power." Christie agreed, and drew a distinction between organizations and movements.

Saturday monring led off with a panel on Progressive legislative caucuses at the local level (watch) moderated by Suman Raghunathan and featuring local Rep Chris Blazejewski as well as NY City Councilor Melissa Mark-Viverito, and Brian Rothernberg of ProgressOhio.

Mark-Viverito credited OWS with helping change the discussion and push a more progressive fiscal agenda with the NY governor, and stressed the importance of people power. With the progressive caucus in NY taking on stop-and-frisk, they're hoping for a street demonstration later this month with 100K people. Blazejewski remarked on how surprisingly easy it can be to have impact in politics. "It's funny how [quickly] you can go from stuffing envelopes to running campaigns." He also had a prediction about Citizens United, which he called "the most important issue progressives will face." Said Blazejewski, "The next challenge to Citizens United will come from candidates." He argued that the disparity between campaign funding restrictions imposed on candidates and the unlimited dark money of the PACs was ripe for a legal challenge.

Brown, Hodges, Brock, Sullivan, Crowley

Next was a panel dear to my heart: When Democrats aren't Democrats: The Story of Rhode Island (watch) with five of my personal heroes: Steven Brown, ACLU, Paula Hodges, Planned Parenthood, Kate Brock, Ocean State Action, Ray Sullivan, Marriage Equality RI, and the moderator, NEA RI's Pat Crowley. If lightning had struck the dais, the entire political landscape in the state would have been shifted fifteen degrees rightward.

Crowley did a brief table-setting intro to the peculiarities of RI politics, which drew boos from the audience when he noted that a Democrat in the general assembly is a member of ALEC. Brock talked about the strategy for making progress. "On a lot of the issues we as progressives care about, we don't have a majority," she said, and stressed the importance of finding and working with legislators of all political stripes who could add leverage. "We need to identify firewalls who are with us on issues."

Brown elicited a few puzzled faces in the audience when he talked about how Rhode Island was the only state with Democratic majority in the general assembly (and a Democratic Secretary of State) to produce a voter ID law. It was all about anecdote, he said, saying that legislators all recounted friends of friends who had witnessed voter fraud, although there had been no cases prosecuted and none reported to the Board of Elections. "What other felony have so many people seen, and not reported?" he asked.

The explanation, Brown said, was that RI Democrats have such a big tent, "they invite everyone into the tent, no matter what their party may be." Crowley added dryly, "The tent is so big, it's a circus tent. That's how you let the elephants in."

Hodges, who was the most recent transplant to the state, shared some of her initial impressions, which was that our legislature proceeded by the "three Ps: preordained, private, and paternalistic." She recounted the story of the healhcare exchange bill, which made it almost all the way through the legislature before a toxic rider was attached, leaving the only option to work with the Governor to create the exchange through an executive order. But the fight, obviously, is far from over in Hodges estimation. "The new horizon in women's health access restriction will be conscience clauses."

For Brock, the survival strategy is "losing forward," in which the OSA coalition may not win on the issue, but achieves greater education and engagement. She talked about being able to raise public awareness around the recent Cimini amendement which would have attempted to redress the tax imbalance for those making over $250K. "I never imagined myself being passionate about tax policy," she admitted. "But I kept running into it, because people would always say, 'there's no money,'" a line she did not accept. "When they say there's no money, they're lying." She talked about how they had attempted to call the bluff of the trickle-down crowd by attempting to tie tax breaks to performance for the so-called job creators. "Create jobs? You get a lower tax rate."

Sullivan described last year's dashed hopes for marriage equality, which included the general assembly pulling a bait-and-switch to civil unions at the last minute, and accepting the noxious Corvese amendment on the floor. Sullivan chalked it up to the intense locality of the state, where legislators often face powerful voices in their districts and from the Catholic Church, as well as the nature of the "democrats" in the state as a whole. "The right wing of the Democratic Party in this state is way the hell more right than the Republican." He also wondered about the attitude of leadership at the legislature. "When a a leadership decision is made, and you go to the legislature [to push back] there's this attitude of 'How come you're still fighting? Didn't you hear us?'" He wondered aloud how things sometimes seemed so settled before the actual vote.

Angelica Rubio, Bob Plain, Laura Packard, Phillip Martin; moderator Andrew Villeneuve

Last panel of the day was also a favorite: Revitalizing State and Local Blogging (watch). Primarily of interest to those in the room, it offered perspectives on ways that progressive bloggers could connect, build networks, and leverage each other as shared resources. Villeneuve flipped the session, starting with questions from the audience and making it very interactive, so if you're interested, you'll want to watch the livestream. A proud moment for Rhode Island was Bob Plain, editor of our local progressive mothership, RI Future, putting a stake in the ground. Despite tales of blogs vanishing from the web and precarious local revenue, Plain said, "I intend to be the first one to make it work." (And if anyone can, it's Bob. I'll confess that this was the first time we met face-to-face, although we've exchanged dozens of e-mails. Try explaining *that* to anyone outside the state. Imagine someone from, say, Texas asking: "You live fifteen miles away and you've never gotten to Providence to meet?")

As I said, if you're interested in the closing keynotes, you should go watch the video. But I have to share one last highlight: between a video from President Obama and a rousing pitch from Gov. Howard Dean, Rep. Teresa Tanzi came out with a barnburner of a speech — you can go read it here. Tanzi deserves the last word on NN12...

Rep. Teresa Tanzi

"You need to join me. Take the next step, run for office. Yes, you. The one with the family, the job, the crushing load of schoolwork, the fuller than full plate. YOU! Anything less than full participation will not be enough. 

Take all that you have gathered here at Netroots; the ideas, the energy, the contacts. Take it all back to your communities and commit to engaging on a whole new level. You have to, because it is clear that what we, as progressives, have done in the past is not enough. Now is the time to demand more, give more and fight harder than you ever have. Anything less will not be enough."

Hudson Hinckley explains gas prices; reproduced for commentary and criticism.

This week, RI Republican Senate Candidate Barry Hinckley released a campaign spot featuring his five-year-old son giving an economics lecture, and there's something not quite right about it. While most commenters have focused on the bizarre followup interview he and his son gave with Fox's Neil Cavuto, where Hinckley appeared to be lip-synching his son's responses like Fats in Magic, I was more interested in the chart the boy shows in the still frame, above, of gasoline prices from 2006 to the present. It's just, well, fundamentally misleading.

What the data actually show.

I can understand that a five-year-old doesn't know enough to label both the axes, or make sure his line crosses the origin. And, granted, I'm a bit of a chart geek (after all, I slammed the chair of the Portsmouth School Committee for showing a chart with a distorted Y axis). But that's just not what the shape of the line looks like, either in outline or detail. Based on numbers from the US Energy Information Administration, it should look like this chart over here.

I can forgive a lot from a five year old. A Senate candidate? Not so much.

I expect that the person who represents me in the Senate knows how to plug numbers into Excel. And doesn't pretend that they can bend the curve for political gain. The "why" of rising gas prices? Mother Jones has a good explainer.

Check my numbers:
Worksheet on Google Docs; data available from the US Energy Information Administration

Full disclosure: This is the kind of geekery I indulge in on Friday nights. Also, I'm a Democrat and supporter of Sen. Whitehouse. And not just because he came to my local supermarket to talk about helping working folks, or took the time to talk to my son about his experience in Mock Trial.

Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed (D) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D) stopped by Clements, Portsmouth's local supermarket this afternoon to stress the importance of the payroll tax cut, unemployment extension, and other pending jobs legislation which has been blocked in congress.

Standing next to the store's general manager, Tracy Anthony, Reed praised Clements. "Tracy's doing her part," he said, urging his colleagues across the aisle to do the same, highlighting the provisions in the payroll tax bill that would add incentives for employers to add staff. "The whole key to getting our economy moving again is putting people back to work," adding that the bill was "Fiscally responsible as well as responsive to the employment situation."

Anthony said that the payroll tax cut would make a big difference to her employees, "They would have more money to do things they need to," and benefit the store as well, allowing them to offer more hours to part-timers and even consider adding staff.

Sen. Whitehouse agreed, and also noted the important of extending unemployment insurance, which had also been blocked. Without action, he said, "Its going to be a really bad Christmas for a lot of families."

But Whitehouse was hopeful that Republicans in Congress might see reason. "They know that they can't go home for Christmas having left regular working Americans in the lurch," he said, "And they haven't found an alternative that even their own team will support." He promised that he and Reed would continue fighting. "Sometimes it's like Jericho — you have to go around the city more than once before the walls come down."

Full disclosure: I'm an officer of the Portsmouth Democratic Town Committee and a total supporter of legislation that will help working Americans.