[a_p]

The real scandal here happened in 1959. When Congress passed created 501(c)(4)s, the law said that (emphasis is mine): "Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare".

In other words, 501(c)(4)s were intended to be allowed to spend NO MONEY on politics. However, a 1959 IRS regulation decided that "exclusively" (0%) really meant "primarily"(up to 49%), and in doing so they completely changed the spirit of law, which was not only illegal, but made the new law a nightmare difficult to enforce. Every single 501(c)(4) that has spent money on politics since 1959 has been in violation of the law passed by Congress — which means that the real law is almost guaranteed not to be enforced.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/06/17/the-real-ir...

[jacques_chester]

As I understand it, the US method of interpretation of legislation is to take the opinions of government agencies more or less at face value. After all, they're the experts, so to speak. This is distinct from the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution.

To me it seems like an abrogation of the independent role of the judicial arm. In Australia, for example, the courts jealously defend their rights and powers to interpret legislation to divine the intent of Parliament. Each government agency has no more standing or influence than anyone else.

IANAL, TINLA.

[danso]

Government agencies are part of the executive branch, though...so in a sense, their professional role is to execute the law. The judiciary at every level has the power to check that execution...a criminal judge can rule against the prosecutor's office, for example.

I guess I'm not getting what you're getting at? When the judiciary interprets the intent of a law, whose opinion besides the government agency do you think they should consider with equal influence? And if you're going to say, "the public"...well, I think that is the case in the U.S. too. So how are you gauging whether Australia's courts give fairer weight to the public than America's courts?

[jacques_chester]

The idea is that from day to day, agencies interpret the Acts that govern them in order to correctly give them effect. When someone challenges an agency, a US Court presumes in the first instance the agency's interpretation is correct because they are the experts in its administration.

An Australian court does not make that presumption.

It's a big deal because if you go to court against a US agency over the content of its relevant laws, you have to overcome that presumption. In practice that gives US agencies de facto interpretive powers that Australian agencies don't usually have.

IANAL, TINLA.