The Political Activity Compliance Initiative (PACI). Sounds ominous, doesn’t it? That’s what the IRS is calling its program to investigate churches and other non-profit groups that they suspect of engaging in impermissible political activity.

Tax-exempt organizations are properly prohibited from overtly engaging in partisan politics. It’s entirely appropriate to keep religious institutions and others from operating as tax-free front groups for politicians while avoiding campaign finance laws. The problem with PACI is that it doesn’t provide a workable definition for the activity it seeks to regulate. Consequently, the affected institutions have no clear guidelines for when they may be in violation. In addition, the agency can use the initiative to target groups for partisan purposes. The result would be political activity compliance, alright.

Indeed, amongst the more high profile investigations are those against the NAACP and the All Saints Church, a predominately liberal congregation in Pasadena, CA. Last year, Congressman Kendrick Meek (D-FL) sent a letter to IRS Commissioner, Mark W. Everson, asking him to look into whether black churches in Florida were being unfairly singled out.

OMB Watch prepared a report detailing the pitfalls of the IRS program. They summarized several factors that they believe raise constitutional concerns:

• The vagueness of the “facts and circumstances” test
• Secrecy regarding enforcement action
• IRS statements regarding its intent to prevent repeat violations before an election
• The threat that an organization’s tax-exempt status will be revoked
• Lack of deadlines for closing cases

In addition to these concerns is the potential for partisan mischief if politically motivated people or groups chose to file complaints against opponents as a strategy to suppress free expression. The IRS would then be obligated to conduct an investigation which could lead to the revocation of the non-profit’s tax-exempt status. This would have a chilling effect on free speech as well as the free exercise of religion.

Could it be more than a curious coincidence that this initiative is being advanced at this time during an election year? This is not the first time the IRS has made a point of chasing down churches and charities. In June of 2004, Everson appeared before a Senate committee to announce an unprecedented audit effort against these groups. That announcement also came in the midst of election year politics.

This administration has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to tell the truth or to act honorably. The lies it told prior to the Iraq war, its incompetence in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, the innumerable examples of partisanship with regard to legislating, judges, executive appointees, election fraud, etc., are all good reasons to be suspicious of their motivation for launching this initiative. Would you trust the IRS to administer this program fairly? Commissioner Everson came right from the Bush White House, where he was deputy director for management for the Office of Management and Budget. His wife, Nanette, was a White House counsel. One of his first projects at IRS was a plan to cross-check applications for tax-exempt status against terrorist watch lists. These lists were notoriously inaccurate. He also considered sharing IRS data with other agencies in spite of the fact that it was illegal to do so. He was said to believe that 9/11 legislation gave him the authority to act without the laws being changed. Sound familiar?

The rubber stamp Republican congress cannot be depended on to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. The media won’t be any help either. So if the IRS accuses liberal non-profits of politicking, without also going after the Falwells and the Dobsons, it will be up to the people to set the media and the government straight.

UPDATE: I wonder if any action has been taken concerning this pastor who told his congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Kerry should either leave the church or repent?

The House is voting on, and will likely pass, H. Res 895 (PDF), a bill designed to condemn the New York Times for publishing a story that disclosed government spying on private banking transactions. The program is just another effort on the part of the Bush administration to further erode civil liberties in pursuit of their agenda of fear.

Never mind that the story disclosed nothing that wasn’t already publicly available (as Glenn Greenwald expertly illustrates), or that the Wall Street Journal and the L.A. Times also ran the story, or that, while this leak outrages the administration, they have no problem leaking the identity of covert CIA operatives in order to punish their critics.

This bill is about one thing only: Intimidating the press into silence. Ironically, it is directed at a press that is already silent most of the time on the important matters that face our nation and world. This is just a continuation of a policy to manage the media through fear. Earlier this month, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called for the criminal prosecution of the editors of the Times just because they finally started to do their job. Bill O’Reilly has been castigating the Times and asking his viewers if they would rather side with government or the press. Thomas Jefferson already answered that question saying:

“…were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

The media is already a doddering institution that, more often than not, fails to satisfy its mission. But this sort of legislative assault on the first amendment can only make things worse.

The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) is opening the vault to reveal your banking transactions to the federal government. This is being done with what they call an “administrative” subpoena that is not approved by any judicial agency. Once again, this administration has found a way to peek into private matters of law-abiding citizens by spreading the fear of terrorism and proclaiming that they will protect our sorry butts.

The story was investigated by the New York Times who proudly asserted that they went forward with publication, despite pressure from the White House. But it appears that the truth is that they held the story for several weeks when they were negotiating with officials that sought to suppress the news. The NYT only rushed to print because they were about to be scooped by the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal.

NYT reporter, Eric Lichtblau, even admitted that the paper’s decision to publish was partly based on the fact that, “It was done at the cabinet level this time around,” and that the president did not get involved directly. Does that mean that if the president had directly made the request to kill the story, the paper would have complied? That doesn’t seem like a point of pride to me.

Since the Pentagon booted reporters out of Guantanamo last week, they have apparently relented and invited a reporter back in. By happenstance, it is a reporter from Fox News.

ThinkProgress has the story about how Andrew Napolitano was singled out for a guest pass to the Cuban detainee facility. But since the original story claimed the prior evictions were to prevent lawsuits from news outlets that were not present, does this mean that these other media outlets are now free to sue because Fox was allowed in and nobody else?

The office of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told reporters covering Guantanamo to take a hike. The reporters from the Los Angeles Times and the Miami Herald were given orders to be prepared to leave by 8:00 am Wednesday morning. Another reporter from the Charlotte Observer was given until Saturday with the stipulation that he would not be given access to the prison camp. Which, I suppose, means that he could still use the spa and lounge on the beach.

The reason given for the booting was that other media outlets were threatening to sue if they were not allowed in. This reason doubles as an admission that the Pentagon was already denying access to other reporters. The Pentagon did not identify any party that indicated an intent to sue, nor were reasons given for their exclusion.

The reporters who managed to gain temporary access were invited to cover military tribunals that were to have begun this week. But while they were there, three prisoners, protesting their detention without charges or legal rights, committed suicide. The tribunals were subsequently cancelled and the reporter’s invitations revoked.

The Center for Constitutional Rights was representing the three men who committed suicide. They released a statement regarding the media blackout:

“At a time when the administration must be transparent about the deaths at Guantanamo, they are pulling down a wall of secrecy and avoiding public accountability. This crackdown on the free press makes everyone ask what else they are hiding down there. This press crackdown is the administration’s latest betrayal of fundamental American values. The Bush Administration is afraid of American reporters, afraid of American attorneys and afraid of American laws.”

That just about says it all.

American media has worked hard to earn it’s reputation as the lapdog of politicians and corporations. And how are they rewarded for their obedience? With threats of prosecution and incarceration should they publish any stories that contain classified information. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, rolled up the newspaper and smacked the press’ nose when he appeared on “This Week” last Sunday.

“There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that [prosecution] is a possibility.”

Gonzales goes on to propose that there needs to be an accomodation between the right to a free press, and the government’s ability to “go after criminal activity.” How he arrives at that conclusion is unstated, but I think that most Constitutional scholars would agree that the Bill of Rights has precedence over a power-hungry prosecutor.

The danger in the Attorney General’s remarks is not merely the risk that prosecution poses for reporters, but the fact that the threat alone can frighten an already timid press corp from publishing any stories that might anger the Justice Department or the administration. And should prosecutions occur, what protections are in place to prevent them from being punitive or partisan?

At News Corpse we already believe that the media is dead. Now you will see how the dead react to being threatened with incarceration. They will, of course, just lie there.

If you aren’t already disturbed enough by the warrantless wiretapping and data collection the National Security Agency is engaging in, then fasten your seatbelt – it’s getting worse.

ABC reporters Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, were informed by a source that it is, “time for you to get some new cell phones, quick.” This warning, given in person, revealed that the government was tracking phone numbers connected to the reporters. By cross-checking those numbers within the massive database they’ve compiled, it would be possible for the government to learn the identity of whistleblowers and other anonymous sources. This should open the eyes of those who have defended the NSA program because it was merely collecting data, not listening in.

News Corpse was founded on the premise that the media is dead. How much more evidence do we need? It is impossible to maintain a free press if reporters and their sources are unable to communicate because they fear the government is monitoring them. Just announcing that such a program exists will scare off most of those who have knowledge of misconduct or crimes committed by government officials. And as sources dry up, corruption will bloom.

While the media may be dead, this intrusive and repressive government is very much alive. What is it going to take for the American people to become sufficiently outraged to demand that their leaders honor the Constitution? Freedom of the press is supposedly guaranteed by the First Amendment, but this administration doesn’t care about that. Do the American people care?