An op-ed in yesterday's USA Today "Turning a blind eye, IRS enables church politicking" disapproves of the way the IRS is handling a supposedly growing number of churches that do not comply with the ban on endorsing candidates or political parties. The article notes that 40 churches were investigated for activity during the 2004 election season and not one had its tax-exempt status revoked.

An article in the National Journal ($$), "A Two-Front War Over Lobbying", makes the very interesting point that lobbyists are pleased in light of grassroots lobbying disclosure falling from the Senate ethics and lobbying reform bill. The article pairs the loss of grassroots lobbying disclosure and the Supreme Court's decision to take up the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) case as both key victories for lobbyists. Thematically the two issues concentrate on the regulation of political speech and advocacy.

A Jan. 12, 2007 report from the Congressional Research Service (crs) says courts have upheld the constitutionality of disclosure requirements aimed at "preventing corruption and limiting the undue influence of monied and powerful interests..." The report, Grassroots Lobbying: Constitutionality of Disclosure Requirements by CRS legislative attorney Jack Maskell, provides a detailed history of legal protections for grassroots advocacy and the government's interest in disclosure. The summary says:

As previously noted, the Supreme Court will most likely not hear oral arguments in the Wisconsin Right To Life (WRTL) case until April. However, the current commotion over the case is strong, foreshadowing the commentary to follow the court's decision. Two blogs with differing opinion have been going back forth on the other's commentary. As these arguments bounce off of one another, so does the issue of the case, intent and influence of the WRTL advertisements. See Bob Bauer's latest blog at More Soft Money Hard Law and Rick Hasen's blog at electionlawblog.org.