As time passes, policy debates in Washington become less authentic, less civil, and less focused. Instead of making a rational case supported by evidence, political and policy exchanges become more about scoring points than making one. Attacks on funding sources are one of the most common ways that issue campaigns are undermined. While disclosure regulations can help expose cozy relationships, all too often these rules are used in intellectually dishonest attempts to undermine valid policy positions.
Earlier this week, reports about Robert Mercer’s IRS battles began generating more headlines. A billionaire hedge fund manager disagreeing with the IRS over taxes would normally miserably fail the newsworthiness test. However, when paired with the Mercer family’s political activities, specifically their financial support of conservative candidates and causes, the story becomes much more interesting.
{mosads}Mercer critics readily point to the more than $22 million he donated to help elect an anti-regulation president. Financial support of endeavors by top White House advisors including David Bossie’s Citizens United and Steve Bannon and Peter Schweizer’s Government Accountability Institute are also quick to be mentioned in the same context of a disputed tax bill of an estimated $7 billion.
It would be disingenuous not to at least concede there is an appearance of quid-pro-quo when these and other groups apply pressure to remove the IRS Commissioner. While these are admittedly bad optics, there is much more to the story.
Back in 2010, when Lois Lerner was the IRS’s director for exempt organizations, Tea Party-inspired groups were targeted by the agency. Years of investigations and a less publicized missing emails scandal exposed how, under Lerner’s leadership, the IRS used its power to silence conservative voices (some of which were supported by Mercer.)
These IRS abuses are well-documented through the work of Congressional investigators and conservative organizations. As the scandal was exposed, the pressure began to generate results. Lerner resigned in September of 2013, but despite the overwhelming evidence presented, the Department of Justice closed its investigation into the matter in October 2015.
Conservative legislators, think tanks, and advocacy organizations are not about to let this matter go. Now focus is shifting to what has been described as a cover-up by IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who began his leadership tenure in late 2013. Although Lerner escaped without penalty, the environment is growing more hostile for Koskinen and the IRS. There is even a ten-minute video from the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform explaining the matter and demanding accountability.
Earlier this month, a letter to President Trump signed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and more than three dozen other legislators stated, “So long as the IRS commissioner is a man who has misled the people, destroyed evidence, and failed his legal duties to the people’s representatives in Congress, the IRS is not ‘controlled by the people…For that reason, we request you immediately remove Koskinen.”
It is no secret that many of the politicians and organizations that worked to expose the scandal and currently oppose Koskinen have received financial support from Mercer, his family, or connected organizations. While these contributions do not change the IRS’ past treatment of conservative groups, they are being used by critics to change the subject – a typical diversion tactic. There is little that can be done to defend the IRS in this matter, so the strategy to distract by going after Mercer makes strategic sense – and should have been expected.
Spending $22 million to help put an administration in power that can theoretically save you $7 billion is an accusation everyone should have seen coming. It is a page right out of the playbook of those who exposed favors for donors to the Clinton Foundation.
Elections laws and political disclosure requirements are beneficial tools, but facts without context can equip critics and provide an opening to reframe the debate.
Robert Mercer and his family have a First Amendment right to support political candidates and causes, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. They should be unapologetic about their support and continue to go on offense. They have been successful in supporting winning campaigns on the politics and policy fronts and serve as a major contributor in the marketplace of ideas.
If the IRS scandal continues to unfold as typical Washington arguments do, we will soon see the “follow the money” conspiracy theory narrative that attempt to malign Mercer. The agitators will generate headlines that completely miss the original point – on purpose. While Mercer’s battle with the IRS and the Lerner/Koskinen scandal are separate matters, efforts to conflate them to portray Mercer as the villain and the IRS as the victim are already underway. This tactic is effective at first, as the zingers in the debate lead the discussion. But distraction stories rarely influence support, and never change the facts.
In the face of escalating attacks, Mercer must stay true to his message (while fighting the IRS on two separate fronts.) The legislators and organizations that played a vital role in exposing the actions at the IRS will have the same challenge to justify their pursuits. Everyone will be tested. It will be tempting to react to the charges and start justifying actions and contributions, but that would be a big mistake. The minute that a communications strategy switches from proactive to reactive is the instant it begins losing support.
Dan Rene is a senior vice president in the public affairs practice at LEVICK, a strategic communications firm.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.