Power Grab - Jason Chaffetz Page 0,23

officials hoping to receive from nonprofit entities?

The DOJ apparently directed nearly $1 billion to handpicked nonprofits during a two-year period, according to a subsequent probe by the House Judiciary and House Finance Committees. The probe also turned up documents suggesting that outside groups began to lobby the DOJ to be included in these settlement agreements. One document recorded a meeting in which an outside group urged the DOJ to make donations “mandatory in all future settlements” of mortgage-lending cases.

When Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions closed the DOJ’s Access to Justice (A2J) office and ended the settlement slush funds in 2017, congressional Democrats and outside groups bemoaned the closure of a program “dedicated to making legal aid accessible to all.”

Goodlatte responded in a Hill op-ed correcting the misinformation:

Due to an investigation by the House and Senate Judiciary committees, it was discovered that the A2J office was responsible for a terrible abuse of power. In just two years, the Justice Department—thanks to suggestions from A2J—directed nearly a billion dollars in settlement funds away from victims and gave them to their preferred third-party organizations instead. These settlements provisions were designed to funnel money to political allies. The Spending Power is one of Congress’s most effective tools in reining in the Executive Branch and ensures that elected officials are accountable for how taxpayer money is spent. Sadly, unelected A2J officials, working with then–Assistant Attorney General Tony West, circumvented this Constitutional requirement by forcing settling defendants to donate money to third-party groups chosen by DOJ. In some cases, DOJ used settlements to reinstate funding to groups that Congress had specifically cut.

Money that should have gone to the federal Treasury to be appropriated by Congress was instead diverted to Democratic allies. In reversing the program, Sessions issued a memo that read “When the federal government settles a case against a corporate wrongdoer, any settlement funds should go first to the victims and then to the American people—not to bankroll third-party special interest groups or the political friends of whoever is in power. Unfortunately, in recent years the Department of Justice has sometimes required or encouraged defendants to make these payments to third parties as a condition of settlement. With this directive, we are ending this practice and ensuring that settlement funds are only used to compensate victims, redress harm, and punish and deter unlawful conduct.”

The House Judiciary Committee, under its new chairman Jerry Nadler, Democrat of New York, is determined to reinstate the settlement slush funds. In a fact sheet on the committee’s website, committee Democrats argue that “a broad coalition of public-interest organizations oppose the bill.” Among those public interest organizations? US PIRG—a sister organization to Grassroots Campaigns Inc.—and a host of left-leaning nonprofits that would no doubt hope to be future recipients of settlement fund largesse.

Trump Changes Everything

The story told by the 990 forms of progressive nonprofits is incomplete. Only three years of data is available at any one time. We only had data through 2016 at the time this book went to press. We can see the trend that began in 2013, but much of this story remains to be written.

The end of 2016 marked the beginning of what these progressive groups consider to be an existential threat—the presidency of Donald Trump. What might they be willing to do in the face of an election result they believe to have been illegitimate? What role did nonprofits play in the 2018 midterms? What are they doing in the run-up to 2020? We don’t have 990 forms to answer those questions yet, but we will continue to see the work of nonprofits show up as we explore the progressive response to the Trump presidency.

One thing is clear: the nonprofit sector seems to have become weaponized in the service of one political party. We can predict where this trend will take us. More anger will be needed to drive more donations. More polarization will be required to drive that anger. More resistance in an attempt to attract more votes, all in the pursuit of more power. Should this effort prove successful, conservatives will need every constitutional tool at our disposal to protect the institutions we revere. Fortunately, we have a Constitution equal to the task.

But make no mistake, our Constitution is under attack. Democratic hysteria is reaching a fever pitch.

Chapter 3

The Real Authoritarians

Fascist. That is a word we have heard over and over again from terrified liberals who believed the 2016 election signaled the end of American life as we know it. The presidency of Donald