The House voted Tuesday to pass legislation banning the IRS from collecting data about donors to political nonprofits, a measure backed by Republicans in response to the agency’s targeting of conservative groups.
The measure, the Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois, passed 240-182, with one Democrat voting in favor and one Republican voting against it.
A wide range of conservative outside groups had rallied support for the bill Monday and Tuesday, and Koch Industries had backed it. The measure would stop the IRS from requiring nonprofits to fill out a form including information regarding their donors with their Form 990s.
The donor information is not meant to be made public, but the IRS has leaked the information in the past, including, in one controversial case, the donor information for the conservative National Organization for Marriage.
Passage of the bill was controversial because of the impact it would have on 501(c)(4) and other political nonprofits that have played increasingly large roles in recent elections.
Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., said the bill would “blindfold” the IRS to corporate influence on elections. “This is not a freedom of speech issue, this is not a fight for American freedom,” he said, but instead an effort to protect corporate spending on elections.
Rep. Xavier Becerra of California, chairman of the House Democratic caucus, said the Islamic State could spend on U.S. elections undisclosed if the bill became law. “You’re opening the door for secret money to influence our elections,” he said.
Roskam responded on the House floor that the charge was “absurd.”
“As if ISIS is sitting around, not cutting people’s heads off, and writing checks” for elections, Roskam said. He argued that the abuses cited by Democrats were hypothetical, while the harms done to conservative groups under the current rules are real.
After the House bill’s passage, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., introduced a version of the legislation in the Senate. For the bill to become law, however, it would need President Obama’s signature, and the White House warned Monday that it opposes the measure.
