Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed an IRS complaint against former Sen. Norm Coleman’s American Action Network Tuesday alleging that the group violated its 501(c)4 status by working to elect Republicans. CREW posits that AAN used its tax status to protect Republican donors from disclosure and spent the majority of its resources on political campaigns instead of educational activities, as required under the law.

“The American Action Network and Sen. Coleman have every right to work to elect more Republicans, but they can’t violate the tax laws to do it,” CREW’s Melanie Sloan said in a statement announcing the complaint. “No one is exempt from following the tax laws. If a group wants to take advantage of privileges like protecting the identity of donors, it has to follow the obligations that go along with that. Here, that would mean spending the majority of resources on activities unrelated to political campaigns. AAN didn’t play by the rules.”

CREW stated that when AAN applied for a nonprofit certificate from the IRS, it stated the primary purpose of its activities would be advocating for economic and national security policies with only a “minor portion” of its activities being political. AAN also told the IRS it only planned to spend $2.5 million in 2010. Instead, it spent $18 million supporting or opposing candidates.

Much of the activity was in the form of advertisements attacking Democrats over health care reform and urging them to vote against health care reform, even though the bill had already passed when the ads were bought and no further votes were pending.

“[T]he timing of the advertisements was not related to any scheduled vote on repealing health care legislation,” the complaint reads. “The House went into recess at the end of September, and no votes were scheduled on H.R.4903 or any other bill repealing the health care law.”

One such advertisement was against Rep. Tim Walz in the amount of $275,000.

The complaint also says that AAN coordinated its campaigns with other Republican groups:

“Just weeks after the IRS granted AAN section 501(c)(4) status, AAN began, at the behest of Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, coordinating with American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other outside groups seeking to influence the 2010 elections.”

And Coleman’s status as a party leader and his recruitment of high level Republicans also demonstrates AAN’s political nature, CREW told the IRS.

“In fact, most of AAN’s officers and directors are Republican party leaders, fundraisers, former members of Congress, and/or former aides to Republican presidents or congressional leaders,” the complaint said. “These close ties to Republican leaders further support the need for the IRS to conduct an investigation to confirm CREW’s conclusion that AAN’s primary purpose is political activity.”

CREW is asking the IRS to investigate AAN’s 501(c)4 nonprofit status, which allows nonprofits to engage in political activity but only if it constitutes a minor portion of the organization’s activities. CREW stated that a big problem with AAN is the independent expenditures created by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

“Citizens United put a for sale sign on every ballot box across the country,” said Sloan. “It is time for Congress to act and put this genie back in the bottle. Elections should be won by the candidates with the best ideas, not by innocuous sounding groups funded by anonymous donors with secret agendas.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann made Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s 2010 Most Embarrassing Re-elects list, along with 10 other members of Congress. The rankings, released Monday, include an even split between Democrats and Republicans who, according to CREW, have violated the public trust.

“Most Americans would be fired if they were caught patronizing a prostitute or abusing their positions for personal gain, but members of Congress aren’t most Americans,” CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan said in a statement. “Instead, these lawmakers are headed back to Washington where they are expected to police themselves, which is about as likely as the Grinch actually stealing Christmas.”

Bachmann makes the cut along with: Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL), Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA), Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), Rep. Don Young (R-AK) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)

Bachmann was selected by CREW because she “used her official congressional website to organize a rally against health care reform, and called for an investigation into the ‘anti-American’ views of fellow members of Congress.”

The group filed a complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics in Nov. 2009 after Bachmann used her official website to organize her “House Call” rally against health care reform efforts. CREW also notes that Bachmann did not get the proper permit for the rally.

House rules restrict members from using their websites to engage in “grassroots lobbying” or to solicit support for a member’s position,” wrote CREW. “Rep. Bachmann’s website urged people to come to the Capitol rally ‘and tell their Representatives to vote no’ on the health care reform bill.”

Bachmann also made CREW’s list in 2008. Along with Rangel and Young, she is one of three repeat offenders for CREW.

Prior to her election to Congress, CREW was keeping an eye on Bachmann. In 2006, the group went after the Living Word Christian Center after its pastor, Mac Hammond, endorsed her from the pulpit.

Coleman has asked the FEC for an opinion as to whether federal law lets him tap his campaign accounts to cover legal expenses in a pair of civil lawsuits that allege a friend, campaign donor Nasser Kazeminy, funneled his family an unreported $75,000.

In its argument (pdf) CREW cites past FEC opinions, including one that refused to approve the use of campaign funds to pay U.S. Sen. David Vitter’s lawyers for their efforts to repel a subpoena that would require him to testify in a criminal proceeding.

CREW asserts that it would be unprecedented for the FEC to allow Coleman to pay lawyers before he has even been asked to testify:

Indeed, the Commission has never allowed a candidate/officeholder to use campaign funds to pay such legal fees before the candidate/office holder’s testimony was compelled or actually given.

At a minimum, CREW asks the FEC to deny Coleman approval for spending money from his recount committee’s account on lawsuits unrelated to the recount.  In an opinion sought be Coleman’s Democratic rival, Al Franken, commissioners ruled that recount funds may only be spent on recount-related expenses.

CREW notes that Coleman has shifted more than $300,000 from the Coleman Minnesota Recount Committee to the Coleman for Senate ’08 account and speculates that the latter account may be mostly made up of funds from the former at this point.

Interestingly, CREW cites Coleman’s request to the FEC as having been filed April 3, the date that appears on his letter requesting an advisory opinion — rather than May 12, the date on which the FEC posted Coleman’s request on its website.

The FEC is required to reply within 60 days to a request from a candidate or office-holder. Were the FEC to start its clock at the date CREW cites, commissioners would have to issue a ruling within days of oral arguments in Coleman’s election-contest appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court set for June 1.

Coleman’s campaign said back-and-forth with the FEC over paperwork delayed a request he promised to make in December.

CREW filed a complaint with the Senate ethics committee last summer after revelations that Kazeminy paid for Coleman’s suits. The former senator’s request also asked the FEC to rule on whether he could spend campaign money on expenses related to that complaint.

Coleman received a “dishonorable mention” on CREW’s list of the most corrupt members of Congress last year.

CREW has also been a fierce critic of the FEC and its commissioners, urging President Obama to follow through on campaign promises to reform the agency.