Yuri Gripas / Reuters, file

Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin testifies before a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs committee hearing on December 6, 2011. Wolin was the Treasury official who learned about the investigation into the IRS in 2012.

Capitol Hill readied Wednesday for perhaps the most explosive -- or at least dramatic -- of the three hearings into IRS abuses of conservative and Tea Party groups in the past week, with one of the key witnesses expected to invoke her constitutional right to remain silent.

The Republican-controlled House Oversight and Government Reform committee was set to convene its own hearing on the revelations that the tax-collecting agency had singled out conservative groups for additional scrutiny in their applications for nonprofit status. Though the panel will hear from two of the same witnesses who appeared at hearings of the House Ways and Means Committee last Friday and the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, two witnesses who have not yet appeared before Congress could make Wednesday’s hearing into the most eventful yet.

Those two witnesses are Neal Wolin, a deputy Treasury secretary, and Lois Lerner, who oversees the tax-exempt division within the IRS. Wolin was the Treasury official who learned about the investigation into the IRS in 2012; Lerner was the official who planted a question at an American Bar Association conference with the purpose of disclosing the IRS’s targeting of conservatives in public for the first time and who is in charge of the agency’s division in charge of overseeing tax-exempt status for such groups.

In perhaps an ominous precursor for the hearing, Lerner’s attorney said Tuesday that her client would invoke her Fifth Amendment rights against having to offer self-incriminating testimony. She will still appear, though, to voice that claim.

The oversight panel has been one of the most doggedly critical of the White House, providing Republicans with an ideal platform to ding President Barack Obama and his team. The committee, for example, hosted a hearing earlier this month featuring whistleblowers that helped breathe new life into Republicans’ questions about the administration’s handling of last year’s terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

The two other witnesses, former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman and IRS Inspector General J. Russell George, featured Wednesday have appeared in previous congressional hearings.

Throughout these hearings, IRS officials have blamed “foolish mistakes” for the abuses at the IRS, but have denied that partisan motivations or influence from outside the agency fueled IRS officials’ targeting of conservative groups. That hasn’t stopped Republicans from insinuating otherwise; GOP lawmakers have spent much of the last two hearings probing whether the Obama administration had any role in directing the efforts to single out its ideological adversaries.

This story was originally published on Wed May 22, 2013 4:39 AM EDT

Elsa / Getty Images, file

Anthony Weiner, seen at a Brooklyn Nets-Toronto Raptors game in November, hopes people will give him a "second chance."

Anthony Weiner, whose career as a congressman collapsed after he posted sexually suggestive pictures of himself on Twitter, has announced that he’s running for mayor of New York City.

“I made some big mistakes and I know I let a lot of people down. But I've also learned some tough lessons,” the Democrat said in a video posted on his website late on Tuesday.

"I'm running for mayor because I've been fighting for the middle class and those struggling to make it my entire life," he added. “I hope I get a second chance to work for you."

The video, which features his son and wife Huma Abedin, an aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, focused on his middle-class roots in Brooklyn. 

With this bold attempt at a comeback ahead of the primary in September, Weiner is hoping to erase the image of a tweeted crotch shot that precipitated his resignation. 

He at first claimed that his Twitter account had been hacked after a photo of an underwear-clad groin appeared on his feed in 2011. But when more pictures came out, the congressman admitted he had exchanged risqué messages with a number of women and soon resigned.

Prior to his 2011 unraveling, Weiner had begun to plan for a 2013 campaign, NBCNewYork.com reported, and he still has more than $4 million in his campaign account.

Read more on NBCNewYork.com

The video announcing his run is set around New York City and highlights his mother’s career as a public school teacher and father’s as a lawyer who trained under the G.I. Bill.

“Theirs was a classic New York story,” he said. “You work hard, you make it into the middle class and make life a little bit better for your kids. That’s how this city was built. But it is getting harder and harder every day.”

Weiner said he would tackle a slew of issues facing the middle class, including rising rents and house prices and regulations stifling small businesses, and champion education, safety, and “real” health reform. 

“The very people who put everything they had into this city are getting priced right out of it,” he said in the video.

Weiner’s Democratic opponents include City Councilman Sal Albanese, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, Comptroller John Liu, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the Rev. Erick Salgado, a pastor, and former Comptroller Bill Thompson, The Associated Press reported.

On the Republican side, he is likely to face billionaire businessman John Catsimatidis, former Metropolitan Transportation Authority Chairman Joseph Lhota and homelessness-aid organization head George McDonald.

Former White House housing official Aldolfo Carrion Jr., a Democrat who recently dropped his party affiliation, is running on the Independence Party line and also interested in the Republican nomination, the AP said.

A recent poll found that if Weiner entered the race, he would get 15 percent of Democratic votes, putting him in second place after City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, but much less that he would need to achieve an outright victory, according to NBCNewYork.com.

Weiner ran for mayor in 2005, and came close to forcing a runoff against Fernando Ferrer – his party’s eventual nominee. He was considered a main contender in 2009 but quit the race after current Mayor Michael Bloomberg decided to run for a third term.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related:

Off to the races: Weiner could jump into NY mayor’s race next week

Weiner 'can't say with certitude' that lewd photo isn't of him

Weiner admits to 'several' racy online relationships

A top IRS official scheduled to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight committee has notified Congress that she will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions.

Lois Lerner, head of the IRS unit which handled tax-exempt organizations, won't answer questions about what she knows about the improper screening of conservative groups or about why she repeatedly failed to tell Congress that such targeting was going on, according to a letter from her lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd. 

The news of Lerner's intention to invoke the Fifth Amendment was first reported Tuesday by the L.A. Times.

Some members of Congress have called for Lerner to be relieved of her responsibilities. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) alleged that she gave false and misleading testimony to Congress.

Her lawyer wrote, "She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation, but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course."

A spokesman for the House committee said: "The Committee has been contacted by Ms. Lerner's lawyer who stated that his client intended to invoke her Fifth Amendment right and refuse to answer questions. Ms. Lerner remains under subpoena from Chairman Issa to appear at tomorrow's hearing -- the Committee has a Constitutional obligation to conduct oversight. Chairman Issa remains hopeful that she will ultimately decide to testify tomorrow about her knowledge of outrageous IRS targeting of Americans for their political beliefs."

An FBI criminal investigation has been launched into whether any of the IRS actions were illegal and potentially into whether senior officials lied to Congress. Given that, testifying under oath carries added legal risk. 

The Oklahoma tornadoes that killed at least 24 people Monday have restarted the debate in Washington over emergency spending and whether it should be offset by cuts elsewhere in the  federal budget. 

It’s an ongoing battle for dollars that most recently flared in the wake of Hurricane Sandy last fall and resulted in a highly public and angry spat between New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and his fellow Republicans in Congress (including both senators from Oklahoma), who opposed some of the funding in the Sandy disaster-aid bill. 

On Tuesday, President Barack Obama declared a disaster in Oklahoma, making people in five counties eligible for federal aid such as temporary housing and low-cost loans to pay for uninsured property damage. He pledged federal support for “as long as it takes.”

Some of the aid will flow from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Disaster Relief Fund, but it is not yet clear whether Congress will decide that an emergency spending bill is needed to refill that fund's account. 

At a press briefing Tuesday, House Speaker John Boehner repeatedly said, "We'll work with the administration on making sure that they have the resources they need to help the people of Oklahoma." He sidestepped reporters' questions on whether spending cuts would be made to offset an emergency spending bill and why House Republicans from Oklahoma had voted against funding after Hurricane Sandy.

Within hours of the town of Moore, Okla., being slammed by the tornado Monday, some Twitter commentators were criticizing Oklahoma Sens. Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe, both Republicans, for voting last January against a $50.5 billion bill to provide funding for Northeastern states hit by Sandy in October.

Coburn was on his way to Oklahoma on Tuesday but his spokesman John Hart said, “We don't know if an emergency aid package will even be necessary. We do know that FEMA has $11.6 billion in its Disaster Relief Fund as of this morning. We don't know if that will be enough.”

He added that “officials won't be able to do a detailed damage assessment until rescue and recovery operations are complete. We don't know when that will occur.”

And Hart noted that “If an additional emergency aid package is necessary Dr. Coburn will not change his longstanding position on offsets. Since the Oklahoma City bombing, Dr. Coburn has argued that supplemental bills should be paid for by reducing spending on less vital priorities.”

Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. told reporters Tuesday, “The problem I had, and others may have had, with (the) Sandy (emergency spending

bill) was that it was, ‘OK, here’s a number. We think it’ll probably be that much.’ Nobody should be flying over Moore, Okla., today in a helicopter and coming back here and saying ‘We flew over and we think it’s going to cost X billion dollars and let’s just appropriate that amount of money.’ Nothing says this has to be done all at once and the best way to respond to these (catastrophic events) is to always be responding to what you know to be the need, rather than what you think the need might be.”

Blunt said that after the 2011 Joplin tornado in his state, Congress sent disaster aid in “about four different appropriations processes, one of which was just the normal appropriations bill with some targeted CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) money…. but it was in the regular appropriations bill under the (spending) limit.”

Last January, Coburn voted for, and Inhofe against, an amendment to the Sandy bill offered last January by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, that would have offset the new Sandy outlays by reducing discretionary spending (including defense) by 0.5 percent over the next nine years. The Senate defeated Lee’s amendment, 62 to 35.

And last December, Coburn joined Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in criticizing the Senate’s original $60.4 billion version of the Sandy relief bill for its inclusion of unrelated funds such as $150 million for restoration of fisheries in Alaska, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine.

Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo. and other Colorado members proposed adding $125 million for watershed protection and flood mitigation projects, including about $20 million for areas in Colorado burned by last summer’s wildfires.

Their argument was that the emergency spending bill should not be limited to areas hit by Sandy. And in the past emergency spending bills designed to deal with one disaster have tended to become vehicles for a variety of other disaster outlays and other spending.

Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana on Aug. 29, 2005. But after the original Katrina emergency spending bill in 2005, Congress subsequently passed more Katrina funding in a bills in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010 – all as part of other disaster-relief legislation which addressed events from Midwest flooding to California wildfires.

Coburn and McCain said last December, “As Congress considers the $60.4 billion Hurricane Sandy supplemental spending bill this week, it is critical that we ensure taxpayer dollars go to help those impacted by this devastating storm and not to wasteful spending projects.”

The quarrel over the added funding for projects unrelated to Sandy helped to delay the emergency spending bill – leading to Christie denouncing Boehner for not allowing a vote on the bill on New Year’s Eve.

Ultimately both the House and the Senate did pass an emergency spending bill – but only after many condemnations of House Republicans by Democrats and by some Northern Republicans who said emergency funds should not be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget.

Even though most annual spending which doesn’t go to entitlement programs such as Medicaid is subject to the discretionary spending limits, or sequester, in the Budget Control Act, that law does allow for adjustments in the spending caps in certain cases including when Congress considers emergency spending.

This story was originally published on Tue May 21, 2013 2:19 PM EDT

U.S. senators of both parties directed outrage at top IRS officials over not being informed earlier as to the tax agency’s work to target conservatives and demanded answers Tuesday as to why action was not taken more quickly to halt the abuses. 

Senators voiced their dismay at the IRS leadership’s efforts to respond to indications that officials in the agency’s Cincinnati office had singled out conservative and Tea Party advocacy that had applied for tax-exempt status. 

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. demanded to know, “Why wasn't more firm action taken by people, either the commissioner himself or by people at the top?  It's outrageous. Any person can figure out this is unacceptable conduct.” 

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican, said there was no doubt the episode constitutes a “scandal,” saying it “undermines Americans' trust that their government will enforce the law without regard for political beliefs or party affiliation.” 

A former IRS commissioner who presided over most of the time in which the IRS targeted conservatives, Douglas Shulman, told members of the committee that he was not aware of the full facts surrounding the abuses until earlier this month. 

And Steven Miller, the acting IRS commissioner who resigned from that position last week, took responsibility for the controversial manner in which the IRS sought to first publicize the agency’s abuses ahead of the release of an inspector general report on the matter. Miller said he was responsible for a plot to plant a question for an IRS official, Lois Lerner, at an American Bar Association panel discussion to allow her to publicly reveal the IRS targeting. 

“Obviously, the entire thing was an incredibly bad idea,” said Miller about the strategy, explaining that the IRS had failed to follow through with its plan to simultaneously brief Capitol Hill about the forthcoming report.

Those revelations hardly comforted Democratic or Republican senators alike, whose hearing marked the second official inquiry into the IRS controversy. Baucus openly wondered why IRS employees who engaged in or oversaw the abuses were not fired.

The revelations about the work by IRS officials to single out conservatives have become enmeshed with partisan politics. Though President Barack Obama has condemned the abuses and vowed to cooperate with congressional investigations into the matter, that has hardly silenced Republicans’ criticism of the controversy.

The GOP has focused heavily on the question of when Obama was made aware of the IRS’s practices, and whether he should have been briefed on the matter sooner. A hearing last week found that senior Treasury Department officials were notified of the existence of the investigation as early as last summer. And White House press secretary Jay Carney disclosed Monday that the White House counsel, Kathy Ruemmler, was notified of the details of the forthcoming report in late April. She, in turn, briefed White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other senior officials, though they decided against personally briefing Obama.

But much of senators’ ire on Tuesday focused on the IRS leadership’s awareness of the singling out of conservatives as it unfolded, and their disclosure of those abuses to Congress during the subsequent investigation.

Shulman defended his performance by explaining that he did not know the full facts of the inspector general’s findings. He said he found out sometime during the spring of 2012 that there was a list including the word “Tea Party” being used by the officials in the tax-exempt office. But Shulman maintained he did not know what other words were on that list, nor was he aware of the severity or scope of the abuses.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

Senator Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Senator Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican, confer during testimony in Washington May 21, 2013.

“When I left, the I.G. was looking into this to gather all of the facts,” he said. “I've now had the benefit of reading the report and that's the full accounting of facts that I have at this point.”

Republicans voiced outrage that no IRS official had disclosed their awareness of potential abuses or an investigation into the controversy during lawmakers’ efforts to get answers to that very question during the past few years.

“That is a lie by omission and you kept it from the people who are required to oversee this matter,” Hatch angrily told Miller, the outgoing IRS chief who had declined to previously reveal the IRS targeting.

This story was originally published on Tue May 21, 2013 12:15 PM EDT

President Barack Obama pledged the full resources of the U.S. government to assist the community of Moore, Okla., in its recovery following devastating tornadoes that hit the town on Monday. 

“The people of Moore should know that their country will remain on the ground -- for them, beside them -- for as long as it takes,” Obama said in a statement Tuesday morning at the White House, calling the storm “one of the most destructive tornadoes in history.” Obama said the prayers of the nation are with the people of Oklahoma, adding “as a nation, our full focus right now is on the urgent work of rescue, and the hard work of recovery and rebuilding that lies ahead.”

Noting that process will be long, the president assured that those affected “will not travel that path alone, your country will travel it with you.” 

The president said that he had spoken with Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, R, to coordinate the federal government’s assistance to Moore, and had dispatched FEMA Director Craig Fugate to Oklahoma. Obama also signed a disaster declaration on Monday evening opening avenues for federal assistance to those affected by the hurricane. 

Moore, a town which had also suffered a serious tornado in 1999, was damaged heavily during last night’s storm. The president said that it was too early to assess the extent of the damage, death and injuries.

“But if there is hope to hold on to, not just in Oklahoma but around the country, it's the knowledge that the good people there and in Oklahoma are better prepared for this type of storm than most. And what they can be certain of is that Americans from every corner of this country will be right there with them, opening our homes, our hearts to those in need.  Because we're a nation that stands with our fellow citizens as long as it takes.”

Obama urged Americans who are interested in helping the tornado victims to donate to the American Red Cross, which he said is already on the ground in Moore.

Oklahoma disaster puts current Washington politics into perspective… Obama delivers statement on tragedy at 10:00 am ET… That said, there will be an inevitable fight over disaster relief… Three polls, three matters of consensus on the three controversies hitting the Obama administration… 1) The public believes there was wrongdoing; 2) that hasn’t affected Obama’s political standing; and 3) there’s a huge partisan divide… Senate Finance Committee holds IRS hearing at 10:00 am ET… Conservatives come out against immigration reform… And two stories to watch in tonight’s LA mayoral run-off.

Gene Blevins / Reuters

People walk near destroyed buildings and vehicles after a tornado struck Moore, Okla., near Oklahoma City, May 20, 2013.

*** Putting things into perspective: The massive and powerful tornado that ripped through Moore, OK on Monday afternoon puts so much of Washington’s focus over the past two weeks -- on the IRS, Benghazi, and the leak investigations -- into perspective. Oklahoma officials, for now, have put the death toll at 51 individuals (at least 20 of whom are children). “To me, this is bigger than anything I’ve ever seen,” Gov. Mary Fallin (R) said on “TODAY” this morning, and she added that includes past tornados and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. (This is an area of the country that has seen its share of destruction over the last 20 years.) President Obama, who already signed a disaster declaration for Oklahoma, delivers a statement around 10:00 am ET on the devastation, per NBC’s Kristen Welker. And the politics of disaster relief and federal assistance has already made an appearance. Yes, there are still legitimate questions to ask regarding the three controversies facing the Obama administration. And, yes, those stories aren’t going away (in fact, the Senate Finance Committee holds a hearing at 10:00 am ET on the IRS’s targeting of conservative-sounding organizations filing for tax-exempt status). But right now, they take a pause.

*** The inevitable battle over disaster relief: Given the previous fight over federal-relief funding after Hurricane Sandy, it was inevitable that the politicization of this Oklahoma disaster would take place. And it has already begun. CQ Roll Call: “The tornado damage near Oklahoma City is still being assessed and the death toll is expected to rise, but already Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., says he will insist that any federal disaster aid be paid for with cuts elsewhere. CQ Roll Call reporter Jennifer Scholtes wrote for CQ.com Monday evening that Coburn said he would ‘absolutely’ demand offsets for any federal aid that Congress provides.” Coburn’s position is consistent with his vote on Sandy relief -- he voted no on federal funding late last year, as did Oklahoma’s other senator, James Inhofe. And three of the state’s five congressmen voted no, too (Bridenstine, Mullin, Lankford), while the other two voted for the relief (Cole, Lucas). Keep an eye on Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) in this. He has been a bridge between the establishment and conservatives on issues like Sandy relief and the fiscal cliff. He’s got a lot of credibility with a bipartisan swath of members, and he may end up having to do a lot of political legwork to de-politicize this issue.

*** Three polls, three matters of consensus: Turning to the controversies facing the Obama administration, we now have the results from three different polls (CNN, Pew, WaPo/ABC) released in the last 36 hours. And they provide a consensus on three different stories. One, the public believes there was wrongdoing by the IRS and in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack. Two, this belief of wrongdoing hasn’t affected President Obama’s standing (WaPo/ABC has his approval rating at 51%; CNN has it as 53%). A big reason why is the economy: “For the first time since the 100-day mark of Obama’s first term, most say they are optimistic about the direction of the economy. More than half, 56 percent, say the economy is on the mend, the most to say so in polls since 2009,” the Washington Post writes. And three, there is a HUGE partisan divide when it comes to these controversies. According to the Pew poll, 37% of Republicans are following the IRS story very closely (compared with 21% of Democrats and 25% of indies), while 34% of Republicans are following the Benghazi investigation closely (versus 18% of Democrats and 26% of indies). As Pew adds, this level of interest and partisan divide is consistent with past controversies impacting the George W. Bush and Clinton administration; the folks out of power who didn’t like the president in office were always more interested in these controversies. The one exception: The Lewinsky sex scandal, which had more people paying closer attention and almost no partisan divide.

*** Senate Finance Committee holds IRS hearing: As mentioned above, the Senate Finance Committee holds a hearing on the IRS story at 10:00 am, and the witnesses are outgoing IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller, former Commissioner Douglas Shulman, and the inspector general. Given the tragedy in Oklahoma -- and given the president’s remarks around the same time -- this hearing won’t receive the attention it might have. But the Obama White House had it rough yesterday when it dribbled out new information about who knew of the inspector general’s report and when they knew about it. Make no mistake: It’s over something that’s relatively small, when (and who inside) the White House was given a heads up about the IG audit -- after all, there was little the White House could do with the report -- but it made the White House seem not very forthcoming with the press. The White House is acting as if it has a bunker mentality; it’s only dribbling out information if extracted with a specific question. And it’s giving off an impression staffers have more to hide.

*** Bunker mentality and not telling the president: Then there’s the issue that many members of the senior team in the White House knew about the report without telling the president. While it’s understandable they want the president to have plausible deniability about what he knows in the case of an IG report, it feeds the perception that the president is not very hands-on right now. Yes, it’s damned if they do, damned if they don’t -- which is probably why it’s imperative they begin to own these controversies on their terms.

*** Conservatives come out against immigration reform: Per NBC’s Carrie Dann, “Several prominent conservative media figures are backing a new effort by groups who oppose bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform, signaling growing willingness from conservative outlets to marshal their audiences against the bill. Signatories on a new open letter to Congress titled ‘The Wrong Way to Reform Immigration” include RedState editor Erick Erickson, radio hosts Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin, and columnist Michelle Malkin. ‘No matter how well intentioned, the Schumer-Rubio bill suffers from fundamental design flaws that make it unsalvageable,’ the letter states. ‘Many of us support various parts of the legislation, but the overall package is so unsatisfactory that the Senate would do better to start over from scratch.’”

*** Two stories to watch in today’s LA mayoral run-off: And there are two stories to watch in today’s run-off contest for LA mayor between City Controller Wendy Greuel (D) and City Councilman Eric Garcetti (D). The first is that Greuel COULD become the city’s first female mayor, although polls (here and here) have shown that Garcetti has a slight lead. The second story is the expected low turnout. As Jessica Taylor writes, "[T]he runoff race between two Democratic candidates isn’t drawing much interest as turnout could reach a record low despite the more than $33 million that’s been spent on the nearly two year-long contest to succeed outgoing Mayor Anthony Villagarosa." In fact, just 21% turned out in the first round of voting. Now this could just be LA being LA, but the low turnout might be something to keep an eye on. Polls close at 11:00 pm ET.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Los Angeles will make history when voters elect a new mayor on Tuesday but the runoff race between two Democratic candidates isn’t drawing much interest as turnout could reach a record low despite the more than $33 million that’s been spent on the nearly two year-long contest to succeed outgoing Mayor Anthony Villagarosa. 

The race pits City Controller Wendy Greuel, who would be the city’s first woman elected to the post, against City Councilman Eric Garcetti, who would be the first elected Jewish mayor.   

Garcetti, the son of former Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti, has maintained a lead in the polls throughout the race, but most expected the runoff contest between the two to tighten. 

Greuel has racked up the most high-profile endorsements in the race, including ones from former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Barbara Boxer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and six members of the state’s congressional delegation.  Garcetti has been endorsed by former DNC Chairman Howard Dean and two California members of Congress. 

Greuel has also been the biggest beneficiary of outside money in the race, with groups combining to spend $7.7 million on her behalf, compared to juts $2.7 million for Garcetti. $5.6 million of that cash for Greuel has come from unions, with just $1 million from labor groups for Garcetti. 

Despite the high-spending contest, few people in Los Angeles seem to be paying very close attention. In the March primary, only 21% of 1.8 million registered voters went to the polls, and runoff turnout is typically much lower than that. According to a Los Angeles Times review, the winner may not even exceed the vote totals of the city’s 1938 contest. 

Los Angeles County Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman  said based on early absentee returns, he believes runoff turnout will actually exceed the primary.

But that doesn't mean that voter turnout won't still be low. 

"Voters in Los Angeles have voter fatigue," said Bauman, pointing to a string of not just statewide and congressional elections, but also numerous ballot measures and city and county elections. 

But as Los Angeles has also found itself in financial straits in recent years, Bauman said the race has dealt more with how to just maintain city services, instead of big ideas Villagarosa campaigned on during the last open seat race twelve years ago. 

"You don't have that dramatic flair to drive people to the polls," said Bauman. 

Still, Greuel hasn’t been able to overtake the city councilman in the race, and a USC Price/Los Angeles Times poll released this weekend showed her still trailing seven points, 48%-41%. Garcetti also leads among several critical constituencies – women, Latinos and Democrats, though Greuel has made small gains with each. In the race’s waning days, Greuel has said she remains optimistic the remaining undecided voters will break her way. With African-American voters still breaking nearly even, both candidates spent the weekend visiting black churches in the city’s South side to get voters to the polls.

One of the main reasons Greuel hasn’t been able to overtake the lead – her main labor backer, the city-controlled Department of Water and Power is highly unpopular in the area, especially in the crucial San Fernando Valley, even though she represented the area for seven years on the city council. Garcetti has painted her as a puppet of the city’s public works sector, while Greuel has hit back that Garcetti supported raises for the DWP.  

This story was originally published on Tue May 21, 2013 7:41 AM EDT

As the White House works to contain the political fallout over its knowledge that the IRS had targeted conservative groups applying for nonprofit status, the outgoing agency chief and IRS inspector general will join former Commissioner Douglas Shulman in an appearance Tuesday before the Senate Finance Committee.

Republicans hope the hearing – along with a separate hearing before a House committee on Wednesday – will provide them new tinder to keep alive public outrage toward the IRS abuses, which has in turn helped offer the GOP a unifying moment in its opposition to Obama and his agenda. The disclosure of new details about when the White House first found out about the IRS misconduct was likely to arm Republicans with new information heading into those high-profile hearings.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday that Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other senior administration staff first learned about the details of the forthcoming report after April 24, when White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler was told about the report, which was still an unfinished draft.

“To be clear, we knew the subject of the investigation and we knew of the nature of some of the potential findings, but we did not have a copy of the draft report,” said Carney, who emphasized that no member of the White House staff sought to intervene with the report. “We did not know the details, the scope or the motivation surrounding the misconduct, and we did not know who was responsible.”

Those details speak to Republicans’ questions about whether Obama or other members of the administration knew about the IRS abuses sooner than they have let on. The witnesses at Wednesday’s House committee will feature two officials who could offer further detail. The first, Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin, will certainly be pressed on whether he shared his knowledge of the IRS investigation, about which he was first briefed in the summer of 2012. The second, Lois Lerner, leads the department within the IRS overseeing tax-exempt organizations, and has become an increasing target of criticism as lawmakers look to assign blame for the agency’s abuses.

But first comes Tuesday’s Senate hearing, which will be controlled by Democrats who enjoy the privileges of being in the upper chamber’s majority party. But that hardly means that the morning’s Senate Finance Committee hearing will be a cakewalk for the three witnesses.

Shulman, who served as IRS commissioner during much of the span in which the targeting of conservatives was said to have taken place, will make his first appearance before Congress since revelations of the controversy emerged earlier this month. Joining him will be Steven Miller, the IRS commissioner who was forced to resign last week, and J. Russell George, the inspector general whose report brought to light the charges against the IRS.

Both Miller and George appeared at last Friday’s hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee looking into the IRS scandal. But while Miller apologized for the targeting of conservatives, which he blamed on “foolish mistakes” by IRS officials, he defied Republican lawmakers’ suggestions that the abuses were deliberate, or fueled by partisan motivation.

That hasn’t stopped Republicans, though, from trying to use the IRS fiasco – along with simultaneous controversies involving the terrorist attack last year in Benghazi, Libya and revelations that the Justice Department had seized journalists’ phone records – to gain political traction against the Obama administration.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Ky., said Sunday that the controversies amounted to evidence of a “culture of intimidation” being perpetuated by the administration. But he and Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., the Ways and Means Committee chairman, admitted they had no evidence to support their insinuations that the president or his aides had ordered the extra scrutiny for conservative groups.

“We don't have anything to say that the president knew about this,” Camp said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

And new polling suggests that the public – so far – is inclined to believe that is the case. A CNN/ORC poll conducted toward the end of last year found that 55 percent of Americans believe that IRS officials acted on their own in the controversy, versus 37 percent who said they think the White House ordered the singling out of conservatives. Furthermore, 61 percent of Americans said in the same poll that they regarded what Obama as said in public about the scandal to be either mostly or completely truthful.

Republicans’ ability to undermine those numbers and build political momentum for themselves could depend upon their ability to unearth new revelations about the scope of the abuses during this week’s hearings. GOP lawmakers have made an issue of when Treasury officials and the White House counsel’s office were made aware of allegations of IRS abuses, though the administration has countered by pointing out that a House committee headed by a top Republican critic, Rep. Darrell Issa, Calif., was aware of the investigation into the IRS well before last year’s election.

It could be the case that Wednesday’s hearing, conducted by the Issa-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, could be the source of more explosive details about the IRS scandal, if more are to be known.

Related stories:

• White House aides learned of IRS details in April, but didn't tell Obama
• First Thoughts: Scandal or bureaucratic incompetency?
• White House defends IRS handling, McConnell asserts 'culture of intimidation'

This story was originally published on Tue May 21, 2013 3:34 AM EDT

Several prominent conservative media figures are backing a new effort by groups who oppose bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform, signaling growing willingness from conservative outlets to marshal their audiences against the bill.

Signatories on a new open letter to Congress titled “The Wrong Way to Reform Immigration” include RedState editor Erick Erickson, radio hosts Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin, and columnist Michelle Malkin.

“No matter how well intentioned, the Schumer-Rubio bill suffers from fundamental design flaws that make it unsalvageable,” the letter states. “Many of us support various parts of the legislation, but the overall package is so unsatisfactory that the Senate would do better to start over from scratch.”

The letter, originally circulated by Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly, is also signed by over 100 individuals and grassroots organizations, including former Rep. Allen West, Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin, and author David Limbaugh, the brother of famed conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

While the influence of conservative radio hosts was widely credited for the collapse of a 2007 effort to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, a trio of controversies – the IRS targeting scandal, the Justice Department leak probe and the Benghazi talking points spat – have largely dominated the airwaves as the current bill works its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee.

While activists working against the bill believe that grass-roots support can again topple the effort to create a pathway to citizenship for the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants, most concede that the overwhelming Hispanic support for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election made vocal opposition to the bipartisan bill far less politically palatable for Republican lawmakers this time. Additionally, several major groups are still sitting out the fight, like the anti-tax Club for Growth and grass-roots clearinghouse FreedomWorks.

The opposition letter comes after a pledge of support for immigration reform from a coalition of conservative groups that called the bill "an important starting point" and urged Republicans in the Senate to "work to improve the legislation." That letter, organized by the American Conservative Union, was signed by a variety of Latino, faith and public policy groups -- many of which met  earlier this month with Florida Republican Marco Rubio, the key Senate negotiator working to build conservative support for the bill. 

Still, despite steady progress for the Senate legislation and a breakthrough compromise from a bipartisan House group last week, opponents of the legislation feel emboldened by what they see as renewed mistrust of the federal government – particularly in the wake of the IRS controversy.

On Monday, foes of the legislation got an additional boost when the union representing 12,000 employees of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said it will oppose the Senate bill, in part because of an “insurmountable bureaucracy” created at the agency that processes immigration documents.

Activists also plan to hold more than 40 local events nationwide Tuesday to highlight opposition to the Senate legislation.

Related stories:

• Senate panel gives green light to test biometric exit program
• Union of immigration enforcement officers to oppose Senate bill

This story was originally published on Tue May 21, 2013 12:07 AM EDT

The White House first learned of a draft report detailing abuses by IRS officials in targeting conservative groups in late April, though the top administration spokesman maintained on Monday that President Barack Obama was not notified of the emerging controversy at that time.

White House press secretary Jay Carney, in a bid to further the administration's public response to revelations that the IRS had singled out conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny, disclosed at his daily press briefing that White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler was informed of the report on April 24. She, in turn, told senior White House staff -- including chief of staff Denis McDonough -- of the then-incomplete report, though Carney said those details were never conveyed to Obama.

“To be clear, we knew the subject of the investigation and we knew of the nature of some of the potential findings, but we did not have a copy of the draft report,” said Carney. “We did not know the details, the scope or the motivation surrounding the misconduct, and we did not know who was responsible.”

The new details first offered by Carney come amid growing Republican clamor for more information about who in the White House found out about the IRS investigation, and when. The GOP has sought to cast the administration as either less-than-forthcoming about its knowledge of the investigation, or inept in keeping tabs on such a high-profile investigation.

The press secretary sought to characterize the administration's handling of the information as fairly routine. Carney said that the White House is typically notified of similar inspectors general drafts shortly before publication, and that the details of these reports can often change before publication. Moreover, Carney argued, the abuses at the IRS had ended about a year earlier, meaning that there was no way for the president to act to halt continued misconduct at the IRS.

Obama has said that he did not learn about the IRS controversy until press reports detailing some elements of the inspector general review of the IRS emerged in the press on May 10. Obama has condemned the misconduct, and sought the resignation of the acting IRS commissioner. But his actions haven't slowed Republican criticism of his management of the situation.

Carney said Monday that Obama was not informed by senior staff who were aware of the impending report so as to not compromise the investigation before it had been completed.

"This is not the kind of thing, when you have an ongoing investigation or an ongoing audit, that requires notification to the president because what is important is we wait until that kind of process is completed before we take action," he said.

Furthermore, the press secretary said that no other member of the White House staff sought to intervene in the final stages of the IRS report, because it would have been inappropriate to do so.

This story was originally published on Mon May 20, 2013 3:18 PM EDT

Aiming to advance a sweeping immigration reform bill by week’s end, senators on the committee considering the legislation planned marathon sessions to complete its edits, including the approval Monday of a compromise measure to implement a test system for taking foreign visa holders’ fingerprints when they exit the United States. 

In an effort to win over Republicans who favor using “biometric” criteria – like fingerprinting -- to monitor when foreigners leave the country, pro-reform members of the Senate Judiciary Committee approved an amendment sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a Republican considered to be a swing vote on the 18 member committee.  That amendment, a less stringent version of a biometric proposal that failed last week, would require the Department of Homeland Security to establish a fingerprinting system at the 10 U.S. airports with the highest international traffic within two years. After six years, that system would have to be in place at the nation’s 30 biggest airports. 

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Senate Judiciary Committee holds a markup session on the immigration reform legislation in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill May 20, 2013 in Washington, DC.

The biometric tracking is primarily aimed at monitoring visa overstays, which account for an estimated 40 percent of the undocumented population.  

It was adopted by a vote of 13-5.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican who is not on the Senate Judiciary Committee but was a key drafter of the Gang of Eight legislation, has been pushing for the biometric system. 

In a statement, Rubio applauded the passage of the Hatch amendment.

"The amendment adopted today is a good start and I will continue to fight to make the tracking of entries and exits include biometrics in the most effective system we can build when the bill is amended on the Senate floor," he said. 

Prior to the vote, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama – who sponsored an attempt last week to immediately begin implementation of a fingerprinting system at all major air, sea and land ports – slammed the amendment as inadequate, disputing the idea that finalizing a nationwide system would be costly and unwieldy.

“Why we won’t do it and do it properly within a year or 18 months – completely -- I have no idea,” Sessions said.

Congress has previously passed legislation requiring a biometric exit system but has never implemented the program, citing cost, infrastructure challenges and opposition from major airlines.

Proponents of the Hatch measure said it would provide an important step towards implementing a more complete biometric system, which senators on both sides of the aisle agreed would provide the most failsafe method for tracking visa overstays as well as individuals who pose national security threats.

“I do not look at this, Senator Sessions, as a fig leaf,” said Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. “I look at it as a start.”

Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, another Gang of Eight member, added that all lawmakers are “frustrated” by the fact that a biometric system has not yet been implemented nationwide but that the Hatch measure would be the most “aggressive” mandate yet to start putting one in place.

Earlier Monday, senators also approved an amendment proposed by South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, also a member of the Gang of Eight, that would void legal status for individuals who sought asylum in the United States but subsequently returned to the country from which they fled.

That measure was aimed at those like Boston Marathon suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, whose family had been granted asylum in the United States but who had returned to Russia prior to the terrorist attack.

Senators also unanimously approved an amendment to mandate better tracking of immigrants who have overstayed visas by mandating broad data-sharing between customs officials, federal law enforcement and intelligence personnel.  

The committee was slated for a late night Monday. As it began its fourth day of edits to the bill,  Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy said he was optimistic that the panel could complete its work as early as Wednesday night. 

This story was originally published on Mon May 20, 2013 1:25 PM EDT