First Principles

My last post on activist/blogger Chuck Muth’s unethical and likely illegal participation in a political campaign sparked a response from Mr. Muth that’s worth commenting on for a couple of reasons – not the least of which is the spectacle of someone incriminating themselves so profoundly.  (You can read Muth’s full response here.)

I spent some time digging a bit deeper into what a 501(c)(3) organization can and can’t do.  A 501(c)(3) like Citizen Outreach Foundation cannot

“participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

26 USC § 501(c)(3) (emphasis added).  There may be some obscure exception I’m not aware of, but the plain language of the statute is clear – the prohibition on any participation in a political campaign is absolute.

Muth’s first defense is that he’s not a “paid consultant”.  Assuming that’s true, it’s completely irrelevant.  Even “free” services for candidates must be monetarily valued and reported as “in kind” donations.  Muth admits that Citizen Outreach did, in fact, “publish [and] distribute” Mr. McArthur’s press release, which is, of course, a “statement.”  It makes no difference if Muth himself hit the “send” button or if one of his employees did – the organization Chuck heads broke the law.

Perhaps such an organization could simply forward a press release as a purely informational thing, but it would have to be sent on behalf of the 501(c)(3) – NOT “on behalf of” the candidate, which is clearly prohibited.  No one could possibly look at McArthur’s E-mails (“Assemblyman Richard McArthur” was in the “from” line of the E-mail) and conclude they were NOT sent by his campaign, or at least on his behalf.  Indeed, in the second one, active steps were taken to make invisible any connection between the tax-exempt organization and the candidate.  Whether it’s “newsworthy” or not is irrelevant.

Finally, Muth seems to indicate that because this wasn’t an “endorsement,” everything is OK.  But “endorsement” isn’t the standard – mere “participation” is.  And while the word “participation” isn’t specifically defined in the statute, the exact action Citizen Outreach DID take (sending a statement on behalf of a candidate) IS.

Based on Muth’s own statements, what was mere speculation before is now clear – federal law was almost certainly broken.  There’s a reason lawyers tell their clients to keep their mouths shut when the heat is on.

~~~

I want to make clear that this is NOT an “anti-McArthur” post – indeed, I believe McArthur is yet another Republican victim of Chuck Muth here.  I meant what I said in my original post – I like Mr. McArthur, I think he’s a good man and a solid conservative, and I think he would make a good Senator.  (If McArthur were to continue a relationship with Muth after this, I would rethink that judgment, but for now I stand by it.)

Campaign law (not to mention tax law!) can be confusing and intimidating even for lawyers running for office (I know it was for me).  McArthur is not an attorney, and I can’t fault him for reasonably relying on people who ought to have the 501(c)(3) basics down by now.

According to Jon Ralston’s Flash today, McArthur merely asked for help in sending out a press release from an organization that he knew did that sort of thing.  The sin here wasn’t that McArthur asked, it’s that no one at Citizen Outreach said, “We’re sorry – we can’t do that for you, and shouldn’t really even discuss it with you at all.  You’ll have to talk to Chuck about going through his political consulting company.”

I've had Iraqis try to sink ships out from underneath me (this was one of them) - I promise I can weather a few lame ad hominems. Also, this picture does a good job illustrating what's happening to Muth's credibility right now.

By not doing so, they potentially did great harm to the candidate they were supposed to be “helping”.  Sometimes those scorpions just can’t help themselves.

~~~

Also, I just have to say – what’s with the personal insults?  Good Lord.  It’s not that I’m offended by them, it’s that they’re so unserious and unhelpful to anyone.  Muth occasionally posts some very interesting and insightful articles on his various blogs.  But when taunts that were weak sauce by the time I got to fifth grade are interlaced in them all, it destroys not just his credibility (which I don’t care about), but the credibility of the ideas he espouses (which I do).  To the extent that I agree with many of those ideas and philosophies, it pains me to see them carried forward so recklessly and so self-destructively.

~~~

Finally, there’s the issue of transparency.  Based on Chuck’s own statements, it’s now clear that his organization was “participating in” Mr. McArthur’s campaign, however small a contribution they made.  And indeed, the initial investment indicates an intent to build a relationship for more work in the future, should McArthur ultimately prevail.

Therefore, when Chuck wrote a blog post raking McArthur’s likely primary opponent over the coals, he absolutely should have disclosed that relationship in his post (or anywhere).  That’s not (necessarily) a legal obligation, but it certainly is an ethical one.

I wonder – what would Chuck say about a liberal blogger who was working for a candidate and then wrote about that candidate without going out of his way to disclose that relationship in his blog post?

“Ethically bankrupt.”

That sounds about right.