It was a busy week.  There was a Presidential debate last night and the Supreme Court announced its rulings for a number of cases.  What got lost in the busy news week was the release of the National Taxpayer Advocate’s (NTA) Fiscal Year 2025 “Objectives Report to Congress.” The report examines the workings and performance of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) during the 2024 tax filing season and outlines recommendations for improvement. This report provides taxpayers important insights into the functioning – and lack thereof – of the IRS. While it’s a positive sign that the agency has improved its operations since the lowest points of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are still many things that need to be improved. Taxpayers’ calls continue to go unanswered, disputes continue to languish unresolved, and agency manpower and resources continue to be misallocated. The report also points out that every year, hundreds of thousands of taxpayers have their identity stolen and the NTA notes, "It has been four years from the onset of the pandemic, and the IRS’s delays in helping victims are unconscionable." It is shameful that the IRS has not addressed identity theft properly. Instead of getting distracted by shiny new projects, like the IRS’ new tax prep service Direct File, IRS leadership should focus on streamlining and otherwise improving the agency’s inner workings. Direct File is not only ambitious — it is dangerous and intrusive. There are many things that can and should be done to improve taxpayer services that are common-sense and stay far away from the concerns raised by an IRS-run tax-preparation service. It’s time for the IRS to get back to the basics of processing tax returns and safeguarding taxpayers’ information.
 
Profile In Courage – David Boaz
 
Thoughtfulness and reasoned discussion have all-but-vanished inside the Beltway. The prevailing punditry prefers quick quips, personal attacks, and groupthink to reasoned debate and thoughtful inquiry. Recently deceased libertarian thinker David Boaz avoided this dangerous game at all costs and made the case for a free society with a rare combination of grace and sophistication. As Boaz’s former colleague Ryan Bourne notes, Boaz made sure that scholars under his helm were, “not being unnecessarily rude or attacking the motives of politicians in public...[he] thought that for libertarian ideas to be taken seriously, they needed to be presented in a way that people...would take seriously too.” For taking the high road, sticking to his principles, and enamoring a generation to the ideas of liberty, David Boaz is absolutely a Profile in Courage. From the cradle, Boaz received a healthy helping of politics. His father was a judge serving on the Court of Appeals of Kentucky and a “Jeffersonian conservative Democrat.” His uncle (Frank Albert Stubblefield) served eight terms as a Democratic congressman from Kentucky and worked on the Kentucky Railroad Commission. If this family background was any guide, Boaz was bound for establishment politics as a lawmaker or judge. Like many young conservative politicos, he found common cause with an advocacy organization called Young Americans for Freedom and served various roles within the group. In a recent interview with Reason Magazine editor Nick Gillespie, Boaz recalled that he was a staunch Republican during his time at YAF and went to the GOP’s 1976 national convention. But, all that changed in 1978 when he “got hired to work on the Clark for Governor campaign, and that shifted my allegiance. Ed Clark for governor, California 1978—the first big Libertarian Party campaign that actually had some money and a professional staff of me and one other guy.” Getting involved in libertarian politics gave Boaz a focal point outside of mainstream politics, and he started to see how the rhetoric of politicians on both sides of the aisle didn’t match up with their actual policy positions.
 
Despite some successes, state-based political campaigns offered limited recourse for young activists such as Boaz who were fed-up with the national political status-quo. In Washington, D.C., conservative, moderate, and liberal points-of-view were well represented by think-tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution. There was no corresponding home for limited government advocates, but libertarian activist Ed Crane was determined to change that. Crane opened the Cato Institute in 1977, and, four years later, successfully persuaded Boaz to join him at the new think-tank. Boaz spent the remainder of his career at Cato, advancing the cause of liberty through publications, op-eds, media appearances, and debates well-attended by interns and congressional staffers. And, unlike most heavyweights in Washington, D.C., Boaz had a reputation for being accessible and open to chatting with anyone. Cato’s vice president for development Harrison Moar remembers, “Whether it was his fantastic staff writers or a visiting freedom fighter from Africa, David always sat down with anyone who wanted to talk—or those who were made to speak to him. Staff would pile up outside my office waiting for David—some to answer a ‘Boaz Knows’ message, no doubt, and I could see the fear in their eyes. Yet he always seemed ready to engage the next person charitably. David was generous with his time, which he spent pursuing truth, knowledge, and liberty.”  Even when he didn’t have the opportunity to speak with them, Boaz made a difference in the lives of countless people who read his many works. Cato scholar Aaron Ross Powell recently observed, “when I wrote a tribute to him while he was still alive, my inbox filled with messages from others who encountered David’s work when they were young too, and who told me how he shaped their political and intellectual perspective. A generation of principled advocates for genuine liberalism exists because of David Boaz, and more are discovering his writing every day.”
 
David Boaz may no longer be with us, but he lives on through all the warm memories and his Grade-A scholarship and advocacy. Boaz was a once-in-a-generation champion for a better world, and he will be missed dearly.
 
Regulating AI Generated Political Speech
 
Artificial intelligence (AI) skeptics often predicate regulatory proposals on the unserious claim that no agency possesses effective authority to regulate the technology. Once scrutinized, these claims have withered. Recognizing this, technocrats across the government have rushed to deploy their power to mold AI development and use — even absent firm statutory authority. The cooks are piling into the kitchen, and the broth is in danger. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) late last month joined the regulatory fray, announcing a forthcoming disclosure regime for AI-generated political campaign advertisements. Precisely what legitimate interest the FCC — a communications regulator — has in involving itself in political speech remains unclear.  As Federal Elections Commission (FEC) Chairman Sean Cooksey noted in a letter sent last week, “Nothing in [the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which the FCC cites as its statutory authority] empowers the FCC to impose its own affirmative disclaimer requirements on political communications — a form of compelled speech — whether they are forced on the speakers or on the broadcasters.”  The chairman argued further that the FEC maintains sole regulatory authority over political disclaimers and noted that his agency has already embarked on proceedings to regulate AI-touched political speech.
 
Besides its facial lawlessness, the FCC’s misadventure typifies several dysfunctions common in today’s AI policy making. First, the agency confuses its policy goals, pursuing an reckless solution to a largely fictional problem. It improperly singles out AI-generated content as if the technology itself — rather than deceptive information, generally — requires regulation in the political-speech context.  No cognizable reason exists — beyond personal interest, which does not spawn a compelling governmental interest — for voters to know whether AI created or edited non-deceptive political advertisements. AI outputs per se have nothing inherently deceptive about them and, therefore, regulators ought not to subject them to any special disclosure regimes. Other tools — video-editing software, animators, etc. — can produce misleading or false information just as well as AI (albeit with more effort). Deceptive ads must be dealt with irrespective of the technologies involved. Imposing AI-specific regulation necessitates defining precisely which digital tools, as a legal matter, constitute AI. While artificial intelligence has imprinted strongly on the nation’s imagination and emotional consciousness, few Americans — including the political class — grasp the technological intricacies.  In the broadest sense, AI includes technologies ranging from spellcheck to the supercomputer whose impending bid for world domination President Joe Biden fears. As the FCC acknowledged, some sort of definitional fine-tuning — and narrowing — must occur. Particularly in the digital world, where technologies mutate rapidly and defy neat classification, taxonomical challenges will most certainly arise. As Commissioner Carr noted, any attempts at definition will likely end with “Lawyers…telling their clients to just go ahead and slap a prophylactic, government-mandated disclosure on all political ads going forward just to avoid liability.”
 
To be sure, lawmakers cannot avoid such problems entirely. Some degree of imprecision (and the resulting confusion for the regulated) inhabits every statute and rulemaking — even good and necessary ones. This fact should encourage policy makers to avoid unnecessary regulation, especially when proponents of that regulation base their arguments on largely non-existent harms, or where better solutions exist. Despite much worrying, AI-facilitated misinformation — and technologically facilitated distortions of reality generally — have yet significantly to disrupt American political life. The FCC, specifically, with its statutory limitations, lacks the jurisdictional reach to effectively regulate AI-generated political speech. As Carr asked, should the agency promulgate its rule, will “AI-generated political ads that run on broadcast TV…come with a government-mandated disclaimer but the exact same or similar ad that runs on a streaming service or social media site will not?” Consumers’ entirely defensible ignorance of the structure of the administrative state will likely cause them to “conclude that the absence of a government warning on an online ad means that the content must be real.”
 
As they proceed, both the FCC and the FEC should remember that purportedly neutral disclosure regimes all too often disincentivize the use of whatever is being regulated. In the case of political advertising, this means disincentivizing an entire category of speech — AI-generated speech. It means disincentivizing the proliferation of a technology that, by lowering production costs, will benefit smaller and less-well-funded campaigns. By inflating the price of producing political speech — or, more precisely, by preventing it from falling — discouraging the use of AI can only benefit the well-funded and well-connected.

Blogs:
 

Monday: Americans Are Paying More for Power Thanks to Environmentalist Policies

Tuesday: State Bill of the Month – HB 1075 and Bill of the Month: Secure Payments Act

Wednesday: Repealing the Pennsylvania Cellphone Tax Is the Right Thing to Do for Taxpayers

Thursday: Taxpayer Watchdog Applauds Supreme Court Ruling Supporting the Right to Jury Trials

Friday: Profile in Courage: David Boaz

Media:
 
June 21, 2024: Tea at Trianon quoted TPA in their article, “Is The Blueprint Bankrupting Maryland?”

June 21, 2024: Real Clear Markets ran TPA’s op-ed, “Politicians Can Aid Patients By Protecting Patents.”
 
June 24, 2024: Reaganism interviewed David for their story about conservative statism and the effects of Trump's America first economic policy
 
June 24, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their story about Wallethub’s recent report on the best and worst run U.S. cities.
 
June 24, 2024: Mail Online UK (United Kingdom) quoted me in their article, “Dr. Anthony Fauci STILL has a taxpayer-funded security detail after leaving his $480K-a-year government job… and is accused of trying to get 'sympathy' with death threat claims.”
 
June 24, 2024: MSN International Edition quoted me in their article, “Dr. Anthony Fauci is campaigning for public sympathy, Republican says.”
 
June 24, 2024: MSN UK (United Kingdom) quoted me in their article, “Dr. Anthony Fauci is campaigning for public sympathy, Republican says.”
 
June 24, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted me in their article, “Mayor Scott signs $4B budget; taxpayer watchdog raises federal funding cliff concerns.”
 
June 24, 2024: American Wire News quoted TPA in their article, “‘Sympathy-seeking’ Fauci gets surprising taxpayer-funded perk since retiring with $400K pension.”
 
June 24, 2024: Bizpac Review quoted TPA in their article, “‘Sympathy-seeking’ Fauci gets surprising taxpayer-funded perk since retiring with $400K pension.”
 
June 24, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted me for their story about Congress’ COVID era funding plan.
 
June 24, 2024: WAVY NBC10 (Norfolk, VA) quoted TPA for their story about taxpayers funding airports.
 
June 25, 2024: Yahoo! News quoted David McGarry in their article, “Newport News Williamsburg Airport likely to run out of money next year, If nothing changes, taxpayers will be on the hook.”
 
June 25, 2024: The Last Chance of Freedom quoted me in their article, “Dr. Anthony Fauci STILL has a taxpayer-funded security detail after leaving his $480K-a-year government job… and is accused of trying to get 'sympathy' with death threat claims.”
 
June 25, 2024: WCCB Charlotte (Charlotte, N.C.) quoted Patrick in their article, “Taxpayer Watchdog Condemns Charlotte City Council’s Approval Of $650M For B.O.A Renovations.”

June 25, 2024: Real Clear Markets ran TPA’s op-ed, “The FCC Shouldn't Regulate AI-Generated Political Speech.”

June 25, 2024: The Federalist ran TPA’s op-ed, “Supreme Court Strikes A Blow to Government's Union Favoritism."
 
June 26, 2024: Dan Savickas appeared on Real Talk With Riggin KZIM (Cape Girardeau, Miss.) to discuss Dr. Fauci's taxpayer-funded security detail.
 
June 26, 2024: KMZQ-670 AM (Las Vegas, Nevada) interviewed me for their story about the Presidential debate and the size of the government.
 
June 26, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their article, “Baltimore Schools won't say if federally indicted officer still paid while awaiting trial.”
  
June 27, 2024: Colorado Politics ran TPA’s article, “Colorado chooses to hit broadband providers with annual rights-of-way fees.”
 
June 27, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their story on the Presidential debate and the discussion of the nation's deficit and debt.
 
June 27, 2024:  I appeared on WBOB 600 AM (Jacksonville, Fla.) to talk about the Presidential debate and the Supreme Court.

June 27, 2024: The Blaze ran TPA's op-ed, "The Right Approach to AI Policy."

June 28, 2024: Dan Savickas appeared on Mike Ferguson in the Morning (St. Louis, Miss.) to talk about the presidential debate and tax cuts.

June 28, 2024: Issues and Insights ran TPA's op-ed, "The U.S. Should Be Encouraging Digital Trade, Not Undermining It."

Have a great weekend!