IRS confesses to inappropriately targeting conservative groups.

[kage69]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-irs-wants-you-to-share-everything-91378.html



This is page 1 of 3.

Good heavens.

That is freaking ridiculous. What books are your members reading? Seriously?!

 

[monovillage]

NEWS FLASH! It the job of the IRS to scrutinize apps for 501 C4s. What's not their job is to scrutinize one group over another.

If they were being honest and even handed I might just agree with you, but we both know that they were being dishonest, highly partisan and illegally targeting conservatives.

 

[monovillage]

No, because at first glance it appeared to show ways the IRS went too far in investigating these groups. That has nothing to do with my post refuting Monovillage's op-ed. I said from the very beginning that if the allegations of partisan criteria are true, it is absolutely unacceptable and those involved should be fired.

Let's see, I have a piece from U.S. News and World Report and you have a partisan letter from Chuckles Schumer.

They shouldn't just be fired, they should be criminally prosecuted.

 

[HomerJS]

If they were being honest and even handed I might just agree with you, but we both know that they were being dishonest, highly partisan and illegally targeting conservatives.

I believe that's what I said. That was the effect. We don't know if that was the cause.

 

[Bowfinger]

In his letter to the IRS in 2010, Baucus specifically singled out Crossroads GPS, American Action Network, and Americans for Job Security as the kind of groups that merit closer scrutiny (all conservative groups of course). Now he wants to act surprised when the IRS did exactly what he wanted them to, they started to scrutinize conservative groups.

Interesting claim. Do you have evidence supporting it? This article includes the complete text of Baucus' letter. It's true that Americans for Job Security is mentioned, though only because Baucus quotes a New York Times article. (And based on that NYT quote, it sounds like a clear example of an organization that should not qualify.) I see no mention of any other specific group, however, including the other two you claim he singled out. So, what is the basis for your accusation?

The corollary to "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet" is don't believe everything the nutter propaganda machine feeds you.

The real indication that the senate is not serious about investigating this either: Baucus, one of the people who pushed for this to happen will now be heading up the senate investigation of this fiasco. Gee, I wonder what conclusions he'll come up with

That is sheer partisan nonsense.

 

[Bowfinger]

Let's see, I have a piece from U.S. News and World Report and you have a partisan letter from Chuckles Schumer.

They shouldn't just be fired, they should be criminally prosecuted.

WTF are you babbling about? You have an op-ed, I have the actual text of the letters misrepresented in the op-ed. That isn't rocket surgery. It just requires that you pull your partisan head out of your rectum and be honest for a moment. I assure you it won't hurt, and you can immediately go back to being your usual lying self.

 

[PokerGuy]

All groups who applied were approved. Again, no harm to them.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, whether they got approved or not is irrelevant as to whether there was harm or not. Further, multiple groups simply gave up along the way in the face of the IRS abuse, and those are not counted in the tally because they didn't complete the application process.

 

[Bowfinger]

As I've repeatedly pointed out, whether they got approved or not is irrelevant as to whether there was harm or not. Further, multiple groups simply gave up along the way in the face of the IRS abuse, and those are not counted in the tally because they didn't complete the application process.

I do agree with that, for the record. There is harm if their applications were materially delayed due to partisan criteria. That they were ultimately approved doesn't eliminate that harm.

 

[PokerGuy]

Interesting claim. Do you have evidence supporting it? This article includes the complete text of Baucus' letter. It's true that Americans for Job Security is mentioned, though only because Baucus quotes a New York Times article. (And based on that NYT quote, it sounds like a clear example of an organization that should not qualify.) I see no mention of any other specific group, however, including the other two you claim he singled out. So, what is the basis for your accusation?

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=5E41CEE1-9785-0887-0CE04321BF37A8DF

Some pertinent quotes:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on Wednesday called on the Internal Revenue Service to investigate political activity by non-profit groups, specifically the GOP-allied groups spending tens of millions of dollars raised from anonymous donations to boost Republican congressional candidates headed into the critical midterm elections.

The groups highlighted in the reports cited by Baucus include Crossroads GPS, American Action Network and Americans for Job Security – all of which are so-called “social welfare organizations” registered under section 501(c)4 of the tax code.

I know right now in spin-damage-control-mode Baucus is trying to pretend that he wasn't talking about one political side or another, the facts say otherwise, as articles from 2010 (when he sent the letter) speak volumes and leave absolutely no doubt what he was talking about. He wanted the IRS to clamp down on political opposition.

 

[waggy]

All groups who applied were approved. Again, no harm to them.

that is nothing more then you being a political hack.

just because they were ultimately approved does not mean there was no harm. In some it has taken years more. There was harm done.

 

[Bowfinger]

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=5E41CEE1-9785-0887-0CE04321BF37A8DF

Some pertinent quotes: I know right now in spin-damage-control-mode Baucus is trying to pretend that he wasn't talking about one political side or another, the facts say otherwise, as articles from 2010 (when he sent the letter) speak volumes and leave absolutely no doubt what he was talking about. He wanted the IRS to clamp down on political opposition.

No, the FACTS say exactly what I said before. Everything beyond that is spin, idle speculation and insinuation, reading between the lines to guess "what he really meant". The FACTS show that Baucus and those seven Senate Democrats asked the IRS to investigate these groups in general, with no suggestion it should use partisan criteria in doing so. You may believe these Dems were most interested in opposition groups, and you're probably right, but that is simply, factually NOT something they stated to the IRS in their letters. What you think they really meant, or what you think may have happened off the record is mere speculation, not fact.

 

[Fern]

Strictly speaking, is it that they cannot raise funds, or they cannot raise funds on a tax-exempt, anonymous basis?

Some wealthy people (who have lawyers etc.) and trusts and other non-profits that exist primarily to fund causes will not contribute unless and until an exemption letter from IRS can be produced to prove who and what they are.

Lacking that proof (i.e., exemption letter) they ain't getting much money.

They wouild also be severly hampered as regards mailings etc to raise funds. They cannot put "charitable org" in their brochure etc without possibly getting into trouble etc.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I already said it was an abuse. I was simply trying to better understand the actual impact. Fern made a statement that I suspect may be inaccurate, and I just want to clarify. I am not a tax lawyer.

To be clear, anybody can give money to whomever they wish. Any other org that exists to funnel money to other orgs will have a have a bylaw stating no funds can be given to an org lacking an exemption letter. Otherwise, the donating org risks losing its exemption.

Trusts etc generally work the same way.

Fern

 

[Fern]

So with all the outrage over the IRS 501 C3 problem, solution is simple. These groups were supposed to be for social welfare not for politicking. 1959 law was modified from "exclusively" to "primarily" for social welfare. That left the door open for all those Tea Party groups and Bill Burtons group to drive a truck through this loophole.

Change the law back to "exclusivly"

This has nothing to do with 501 C3 orgs.

This is about 501 C4 orgs.

Two different animals.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I don't have a link because I saw this on a TV news report, but current info (or allegations) are that:

1. 471 orgs were targeted.

2. 4 different IRS nonprofit offices are involved (Cincinnati, Washington DC and two in CA)

3. The correspondance etc coming from each of the above 4 to the targeted nonprofits were viturally identical. This indicates a conspiracy.

IDK if this is true, heard it from a lawyer representing some of the nonprofits.

However, if true, I have a problem believing "low level employees" were able to coordinate this across the USA.

Fern

 

[Oldgamer]

So the President has fired, or should I say asked the head of the IRS to resign, and apparently he wasn't even in office when all the scrutinizing of these political groups applications were happening at the time, Douglas Shoulman was, he was a Bush appointee.. but since he is no longer here, someone has to take the fall. We have John Boehner saying someone has to go to jail for this, wich is laughable, because there was no crime committed, as the IRS was after all, doing there job, and come to find out there is a report that says they actually denied more liberal political groups applications for 501C4 's than the conservative groups..wow..

So much political spin, and so much smoke screen, to take time away from the real things that matter.

 

[HomerJS]

Republicans didn't have a problem using the IRS to to target political groups because groups gave anti Bush speeches.

The commissioner said the investigation of the NAACP was undertaken because two congressional leaders, whom he declined to name, requested it. They were unhappy because Bond criticized Bush in a speech in July 2004, saying his administration preached racial neutrality and practiced racial division.

"They write a new constitution of Iraq and they ignore the Constitution at home," Bond said.

After filing four freedom-of-information requests, NAACP lawyers discovered that far more than two members of Congress called for an investigation and that all were Republicans.

Republican Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Susan Collins (Maine) called for the investigation.

Others included Rep. Jo Ann S. Davis (R-Va.) and then-Rep. Larry Combest (R-Tex.). Former GOP representatives Joe Scarborough of Florida, who now hosts a talk show, and Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., currently governor of Maryland, also requested a probe.

GOP used IRS to harrass NAACP in 2004

Now they are bitching??

 

[palehorse]

Republicans didn't have a problem using the IRS to to target political groups because groups gave anti Bush speeches.

GOP used IRS to harrass NAACP in 2004

Now they are bitching??

That's despicable, and possibly criminal, as well.

There, see how that works?

 

[HomerJS]

That's despicable, and possibly criminal, as well.

There, see how that works?

Fair enough but some of these same Republicans are making wild accusations, they sent letters to the same IRS demanding harassment of the NAACP about their tax-exempt status

 

[Balt]

501(c)(4) status is a sad joke.

But if political groups are going to be questioned over their bullshit claims to be promoting social welfare, clearly every part of the political spectrum should be scrutinized.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Obama canned the head if the IRS today.

Officially accepted resignation.

 

[Balt]

Obama canned the head if the IRS today.

Officially accepted resignation.

Probably a knee-jerk reaction, IMO, unless the guy had been told this was going on and did nothing to stop it. There's probably so much middle management in the IRS that I doubt anything the low-level staffers do reaches the commissioner.

Guess it doesn't satiate the taste for blood to fire some GS-9s/11s/12s/whatever though.

 

[Oldgamer]

The guy that Obama fired wasn't even the head of the IRS when this happened.. jesus, the guy who was was Douglas Shoulman, who was a Bush Appointee..for crying out loud.

In other words, Obama fired the head of the IRS as more of a scape goat if anything. Which is really fucked up. What is even more fucked up is that the IRS was doing their job.. and that was to scrutinize those who were filing for applications for purposes not intended. Everything is just a mess.

 

[sportage]

I don't think the average person cares one hoot about this, or Benghazi, and or the AP so called scandal. All this, the IRS, Benghazi, AP is just the noise the machine makes as it churns, smokes and sputters. It's all Washington crap, nothing more.
And who the fuck cares??? Really?
We all know our politics are owned and operated by the NRA, the banks, Wall Street, money and power. So this scandal ridden noise machine really means nothing when you sort thru it all. Especially means nothing to 90% of the public. The press runs with it because it MIGHT lead to another Nixon-like scandal. Something, out of boredom, the press would love and be more than eager to spend 24/7 reporting on. That is, until they too become bored.
But for the average American, we already know congress from one end to the other has no desire to serve or represent the people's will. Those days have long went bye bye.
So these petty scandals where fact is an illusion and no one really knows what is the big issue is, these news media circle jerks are totally alien to the average American citizen.
They don't care. We don't care. It just emphasizes what we already know. That the people's business that matters is, and will continuing to go unaddressed by our leaders and the media.
No one cares. And rightly so. Not in all this crap.

 

[Zorkorist]

Good post Sportage.

-John