Bird and the Buckeyes fight disclosure

Iowa’s attorney general is again leading a red-state posse to stop the IRS and a dastardly rule covering donations to some nonprofits.

Brenna Bird is leading attorneys general from 18 red states who filed a brief in support of the Buckeye Institute. The conservative-leaning think tank is in court trying to toss out a federal law requiring 501(c)(3) nonprofits to report major donors to the IRS.

The IRS doesn’t publicly disclose donors, but Bird and the Buckeyes contend that just collecting the information is a violation of donors’ free speech and could be exploited by political foes.

We’re not talking about 501(c)(4) groups largely free to advocate for or against candidates. Even though they play a big role in influencing elections, they are not required to disclose donors at all. That’s “dark money. You may have heard of it.

But 501(c)(3) groups are different. They can’t dabble directly in elections, beyond educating voters with research on policy issues, such as the need for school choice or rolling back business regulations. But to receive tax exempt status, the groups must file a list of top donors to the IRS.

“Iowans should have the ability to donate to and associate with organizations of their choice without fear of having their privacy exploited or their first amendment protections undermined,” said Attorney General Bird.

Bird said donor lists have been hacked and disclosed publicly more than a dozen times. Although there are hundreds of thousands of 501(c)(3) groups.

The Tax Law Center, which supports disclosure, argues the charitable tax deduction granted to these groups runs about $60 billion annually. It argues donor disclosure is “promoting voluntary tax compliance, deterring tax evasion, and aiding tax enforcement.”

But the bigger problem is language deployed by Bird’s flock is the same rhetoric used by groups seeking disclosure restrictions on many types of political donations.

In September, the Institute for Free Speech used the shootings of two state lawmakers in Minnesota to plead its case for confidential donations.

“ … lawmakers aren’t the only ones at risk,” Free Speech Institute president David Keating argued in a column published by The Center Square. “Current campaign finance disclosure laws expose millions of Americans to danger too.”

For now, the institute argues small contributors should be shielded. But it could easily use the same free speech/safety argument to keep all donations under wraps.

Conservatives, especially, want to keep donations confidential. That way, when they donate to efforts outlawing abortion rights, targeting transgender Americans or boosting Donald Trump the fat fraidy cats won’t get “canceled.”

We already have piles of secret-donor money flowing into parties, campaigns and onto our TV screens. Secret donors can’t be held accountable for lies told by those ads. The Supreme Court herd arguments this week on removing limits on donations to parties. Courts are dismantling the guard rails.

Iowans and all Americans should have access to information on who is trying to influence elections for Congress, the White House and the Statehouse. We need more public disclosure, not less.

They believe voters don’t care. But in Iowa, we do know when the posse rides it can’t be good for democracy.

(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette.com