IRS Scandal explodes. "no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution."

[Jhhnn]

What about targeting purportedly based on political activity, which in practice was deliberately implemented in a partisan manner?

Assumes facts not in evidence, that the targeting was partisan.

If 1000 political groups file for tax exempt status, 900 Tea & 100 Lib, then the IRS sticks a microscope up the ass of every one, how is that partisan?

If they used improper bolo lists to identify those 1000 groups, how is that partisan?

 

[werepossum]

Ahem. My post:

Yes, you quoted me verbatim. I wasn't dodging and weaving and waving my hands, your challenge made absolutely no sense because what I posted is the administration position - that only 32% of the challenged groups are conservative. You're demanding that I post "a credible source" - I quoted the fucking IRS report. Again, this is BEST CASE for the administration, which is why I made the point that although this is the claim, no backup has been provided to show that it is only 32%.

Are you honestly this stupid? Are you truly unable to read what you quote? This isn't semantics, nor is it an allegation. It's the official report, and again, this is the BEST CASE for the administration, showing that only a minority of groups targeted were conservative. The absolute minimum number is 32% due to the overall number and the groups already identified; you're challenging me on a number that could only get worse for the administration. If I was wrong, the malfeasance would be worse, not less, with MORE conservative groups out of the same overall number. Sheesh.

If there's someone here who is fluent in moron and can explain this to Bowfinger in a way he can understand, I'd be much obliged.

And your post:

Wow! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are one profoundly confused person. It would probably help if you stopped listening to Fox and its ilk, and actually learned to read and think for yourself. This has been explained many times before here. I even addressed it directly in this thread, responding to you about your ridiculous claim:

"There is literally nothing in the IG report to support your claim that, 'The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups.' Not. One. Word. The Inspector General explicitly refused to make any characterization whatsoever of the political leanings of the other ~200 groups targeted. This fact has been documented here many, many times."
​

Can you comprehend those words? Perhaps you can find "someone fluent in moron" to explain it to you.

The TIGTA (IG) report does NOT state that there were 96 conservative groups at most. You have that 100% backwards. There were a minimum of 96 conservative groups in the set of applications pulled for additional scrutiny. Those 96 were picked because they had "Tea Party" in their names, or one of the other keywords on the single BOLO list the IG included in his investigation.

The other 201 groups were selected using other techniques. We don't know how they were selected because the IG report doesn't explain. The IG did state, however, that the majority of the groups warranted additional scrutiny due to potential political activity. In other words, the majority were political groups. We do not know the political mix of those groups because, as has been pointed out again and again and again, the IG stated that making such subjective assessments would compromise his role as an objective fact finder. He could identify the 96 because he used an objective criterion: did each group's name match a phrase on the "Tea Party" BOLO. That's it, black and white.

The other 201 groups are presumably some mix of conservative and liberal. Many wing-nut sources insist they were all, or at least almost all conservative groups (based on nothing but their emotional biases). To the best of my knowledge, nobody in the "Obama administration" -- including the IRS -- has offered any information about the political mix of those groups. Therefore, if you based this:

"The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups."
​

on that IG report, you are absolutely and unarguably wrong. You have been badly duped about what that report states.

I specifically said: "The absolute minimum number is 32% due to the overall number and the groups already identified". Note that this is the set of 96 conservative groups. Note that I said "minimum".

You then responded: "The TIGTA (IG) report does NOT state that there were 96 conservative groups at most. You have that 100% backwards. There were a minimum of 96 conservative groups in the set of applications pulled for additional scrutiny."

You are literally "correcting" me by using the exact same word I used. I've grown somewhat used to proggies insisting that words mean something radically different from their traditional meanings, but this is the first time I've seen one apparently arguing that the exact same word means the exact opposite when I type it.

At this point I have to give up; I have confused Elmer Fudd to the point that I'm feeling guilty about it. Please continue arguing that the abuse was worse that what has now been documented. Likely you are correct.

 

[werepossum]

Assumes facts not in evidence, that the targeting was partisan.

If 1000 political groups file for tax exempt status, 900 Tea & 100 Lib, then the IRS sticks a microscope up the ass of every one, how is that partisan?

If they used improper bolo lists to identify those 1000 groups, how is that partisan?

But that didn't happen. Instead, every conservative group the IRS could identify was stopped dead, typically for over two years. At least one confidential donor list was leaked to the proggie opposition - which is a felony. Meanwhile almost every progressive group's application sailed through in two or three months.

 

[werepossum]

The text of the law says "exclusively", but even if you go with the lower standard of "primarily" most of these groups would still fail, and should therefore not be granted tax exempt status.

This isn't a liberal vs conservative issue, almost all of these groups should be rejected regardless of their political ideology.

According to the IRS, most of them do not fail the test. And it became a liberal vs conservative issue when the IRS made it so.

Put it this was: Let's take a fairly innocuous not-for-profit advocating for safe play areas in blighted urban ghettos. They raise money, accept donated equipment, utilize volunteer labor to clean up donated vacant lots and convert them to safe play areas. Should they be banned from lobbying government and running issue ads to support this activity, knowing that their mission could be greatly advanced with government support? Pulling down owner-abandoned crack houses not only frees up space, it also greatly reduces the danger in a given area.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... Still more dodging the main point to fixate on side issues, deleted as boring ... ]

Let's summarize:

1. We agree that at least 96 (32%) of the groups reviewed in the TIGTA report were conservative groups. It is virtually certain the number is higher than 32%. This was never in dispute.

2. You have completely and consistently failed to support your assertion that:

"The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted ... were not conservative groups."​

The TIGTA report does not support that assertion at all; indeed, it explicitly states it does not reach any conclusions about the political ideologies of the groups selected. You've also failed to show anyone else in the administration made that claim. We can all therefore safely assume your assertion was just another fairy tale pulled from your rectum.

 

[Bowfinger]

But that didn't happen. Instead, every conservative group the IRS could identify was stopped dead ...

Speaking of fairy tales. That's another purely partisan assertion unsupported by any evidence.

 

[Bowfinger]

What about targeting purportedly based on political activity, which in practice was deliberately implemented in a partisan manner?

Once again, in what I believe was my very first post on this story, I said that the use of partisan keywords is unacceptable, even if there is no underlying partisan intent. I can see how it might have seemed like an easy shortcut to identify political groups, but it is inherently partisan which makes it inappropriate.

 

[Bowfinger]

Okay, I'll explain. First, he relies on a Washington Post article, which itself relies on politically-motivated statements as evidence of targeting. In response, I provided a report that investigated the underlying statements and found them to be misleading. ...

First, I did not cite any WP article, nor did I rely on one. I looked through Issa's actual "report" and based my comments on the trash therein. Second, my assessment of Issa's fundamental dishonesty is based on his actual behavior over the years. There seem to be few, if any, lines he will not cross. I may circle back to offer a more complete response, but it will need to wait until I'm not on a tablet.

 

[Cozarkian]

First, I did not cite any WP article, nor did I rely on one.

My apologies, it was ivwshane that posted the WP article in support of the assertion that liberal groups were targeted. I quoted his post and provided the link to Issa's report in rebuttal. When you jumped in by quoting my quote, I thought you were attempting to discredit my rebuttal in favor of the WP article.

If you were not attempting to support the WP article as stronger evidence than Issa's report, then my comment was misdirected.

 

[Fern]

The text of the law says "exclusively", but even if you go with the lower standard of "primarily" most of these groups would still fail, and should therefore not be granted tax exempt status.

This isn't a liberal vs conservative issue, almost all of these groups should be rejected regardless of their political ideology.

This. In fact, some have speculated that this is much of the reason the right continues to hammer this "scandal", to keep the IRS under fire so it does not attempt to enforce that law. The wing-nuts want their anonymous, dirt money groups.

You guys really need to study the issue more closely.

The real problem is the definition of "political activity".

Read some cases etc.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

You guys really need to study the issue more closely.

The real problem is the definition of "political activity".

Read some cases etc.

Fern

Hardly. The real issue is that anonymous donations for political purposes are allowed to exist at all.

Anybody who wants to promulgate what they believe in needs to stand behind it, not hide from it.

 

[nehalem256]

Hardly. The real issue is that anonymous donations for political purposes are allowed to exist at all.

Anybody who wants to promulgate what they believe in needs to stand behind it, not hide from it.

How can you punish those with counter-revolutionary ideals if such individuals cannot be identified, right comrade?

 

[Cozarkian]

Hardly. The real issue is that anonymous donations for political purposes are allowed to exist at all.

Anybody who wants to promulgate what they believe in needs to stand behind it, not hide from it.

I see, so contributors to the Underground Railroad should have publically announced their support and involvement?

 

[Zorkorist]

Jhnn would like everyone to fuck themselves.

This is what big government achieves.

Cluster fucks.

-John

 

[Bowfinger]

I see, so contributors to the Underground Railroad should have publically announced their support and involvement?

I'm thinking the founders (and supporters) of the Underground Railroad were probably not too concerned about getting IRS approval as a non-profit organization. That's a pretty silly analogy. IMO, anyone who wants to use his dollars to influence political campaigns needs to put their name on those dollars. We have a right to know who's trying to own our government.

 

[Cozarkian]

I'm thinking the founders (and supporters) of the Underground Railroad were probably not too concerned about getting IRS approval as a non-profit organization. That's a pretty silly analogy. IMO, anyone who wants to use his dollars to influence political campaigns needs to put their name on those dollars. We have a right to know who's trying to own our government.

Go back and read what I quoted. There were two sentences. The first talked about anonymous political donations, but the second was a much broader statement of principle. My post responds to the breadth of that statement and makes a point that sometimes anonymity is necessary.

Nonetheless, here is another example, Hamilton, Madison and Jay spend their dollars on ink and paper in an attempt to influence the government through the publication of The Federalist Papers under an alias. Should that have been illegal? I mean, it is the very definition of an anonymous attempt to influence political campaigns.

 

[Zorkorist]

I'm thinking the founders (and supporters) of the Underground Railroad were probably not too concerned about getting IRS approval as a non-profit organization. That's a pretty silly analogy. IMO, anyone who wants to use his dollars to influence political campaigns needs to put their name on those dollars. We have a right to know who's trying to own our government.

You have no right to see who is paying whom, and for what.

Unless you are communism, or socialism.

-John

 

[Bowfinger]

Go back and read what I quoted. There were two sentences. The first talked about anonymous political donations, but the second was a much broader statement of principle. My post responds to the breadth of that statement and makes a point that sometimes anonymity is necessary.

Nonetheless, here is another example, Hamilton, Madison and Jay spend their dollars on ink and paper in an attempt to influence the government through the publication of The Federalist Papers under an alias. Should that have been illegal? I mean, it is the very definition of an anonymous attempt to influence political campaigns.

Whereas you missed my point. We are talking about non-profit organizations, not personal speech or activities. If contributors want the benefits of funneling their dollars through an IRS-approved non-profit, they need to identify themselves.

 

[Bowfinger]

You have no right to see who is paying whom, and for what.

Unless you are communism, or socialism.

-John

You have a long history of making stunningly stupid and useless comments. I think you may have just lowered your bar even further. Go play.

 

[Cozarkian]

Whereas you missed my point. We are talking about non-profit organizations, not personal speech or activities. If contributors want the benefits of funneling their dollars through an IRS-approved non-profit, they need to identify themselves.

I didn't miss your point. The person to whom I replied, in support of his assertion that anonymous political donations are wrong, referred to a statement of moral principle that has a much broader application. If that principle is the basis for his belief, then attacking it on any grounds is useful. The more exceptions that he is forced to admit, the less useful that moral principle is, forcing him to come up with distinguishing characteristics for the more specialized examples, such as political donations. My analogy wasn't silly, because Jhnnn broadened the topic.

Now, on to your more specialized position, I disagree. I should be allowed to contribute to Planned Parenthood or a non-profit that fights for gay marriage, without my ultra-religious boss finding out about it.

If Hamilton, Madison and Jay had wanted to spend more time writing anonymous Federalist Papers, they should have been allowed to set up an organization that can accept anonymous contributions; otherwise, they couldn't contribute themselves without destroying the anonymity that was essential to their campaign.

 

[Bowfinger]

I didn't miss your point. The person to whom I replied, in support of his assertion that anonymous political donations are wrong, referred to a statement of moral principle that has a much broader application. If that principle is the basis for his belief, then attacking it on any grounds is useful. The more exceptions that he is forced to admit, the less useful that moral principle is, forcing him to come up with distinguishing characteristics for the more specialized examples, such as political donations. My analogy wasn't silly, because Jhnnn broadened the topic.

Now, on to your more specialized position, I disagree. I should be allowed to contribute to Planned Parenthood or a non-profit that fights for gay marriage, without my ultra-religious boss finding out about it.

If Hamilton, Madison and Jay had wanted to spend more time writing anonymous Federalist Papers, they should have been allowed to set up an organization that can accept anonymous contributions; otherwise, they couldn't contribute themselves without destroying the anonymity that was essential to their campaign.

We'll have to agree to disagree. If you want to fund organizations working to change elections, you should not be anonymous. (That's not an issue with Planned Parenthood, to my knowledge.)

 

[bshole]

But that didn't happen. Instead, every conservative group the IRS could identify was stopped dead, typically for over two years. .... Meanwhile almost every progressive group's application sailed through in two or three months.

That right there proves progressive groups are inherently cleaner than conservative groups. Perhaps if the conservative groups weren't so dirty, they wouldn't get the close scrutinization. Remember that it is conservative groups that feed their cows on federal land illegally, ride their motorized vehicles on federal lands illegally, brandish arms and threaten law enforcement. They NEED the scrutiny in my opinion.

 

[ivwshane]

I didn't miss your point. The person to whom I replied, in support of his assertion that anonymous political donations are wrong, referred to a statement of moral principle that has a much broader application. If that principle is the basis for his belief, then attacking it on any grounds is useful. The more exceptions that he is forced to admit, the less useful that moral principle is, forcing him to come up with distinguishing characteristics for the more specialized examples, such as political donations. My analogy wasn't silly, because Jhnnn broadened the topic.

Now, on to your more specialized position, I disagree. I should be allowed to contribute to Planned Parenthood or a non-profit that fights for gay marriage, without my ultra-religious boss finding out about it.

If Hamilton, Madison and Jay had wanted to spend more time writing anonymous Federalist Papers, they should have been allowed to set up an organization that can accept anonymous contributions; otherwise, they couldn't contribute themselves without destroying the anonymity that was essential to their campaign.

Except that in this case a specific tax law was set up so that institutions that wish to support causes like the one the federalist papers supported are allowed to keep their donors anonymous while institutions whose purpose is to get certain political parties elected are not allowed to protect their donors identity.

And that's the issue here; if you are for a social cause then support the cause and feel free to do it secretly, however if you support a politician because he will vote for things you support, then it needs to be in the public eye, we as free citizens need to know who our politicians are beholden to. Right now politicians aren't beholden to their constituents but rather to whomever gives them the most money.

Your example is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The founding fathers made their case for their beliefs they didn't push for certain people to be elected or made shit up about opponents, they argued on the merits.

 

[Cozarkian]

(That's not an issue with Planned Parenthood, to my knowledge.)

It is a problem. The 501(c)(3) organization, Planned Parenthood Federation of America has a Board of Advocacy whose activities included lobbying of elected officials. Most of their political activity is done through a 501(c)(4) organization called Planned Parenthood Action Fund. As a 501(c)(4) organization, donors would be disclosed to the IRS, but not publicly.

The point is, an at-will employee with a super religious boss might be legitimately concerned about his name showing up on donor lists for organizations that advocate for abortions or gay marriage. Similarly, a gun rights activist might be concerned about his name showing upon on donor lists if his current boss lost a child to a gun crime and is a vigorous advocate in opposition to gun laws. There is also the possibility that a future employer could check donor lists during the hiring process. It doesn't really matter if such behavior is legal, it would be extremely difficult to prove and we shouldn't force people to be public advocates if they want to support controversial issues.

If Martin Luther King Jr. could have obtained more donations for the Civil Rights Campaign by setting up an organization to get anonymous donations, that is a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

[Cozarkian]

however if you support a politician because he will vote for things you support, then it needs to be in the public eye, we as free citizens need to know who our politicians are beholden to.

You sure you want to go that far? Because if you mean that literally, it means votes on election day can't be anonymous (I supported a politician because he will vote for things I support), nor can I write an anonymous letter to the editor of my local newspaper in support of a politician. I could write an anonymous, brilliant political viewpoint article for a controversial topic that puts the Federalist Papers to shame, yet be prohibited from identifying the candidates that support that viewpoint.

Now let's go further. Pretend I want to donate $50 to a political candidate. I ask a couple of friends if they want to donate too, and they give me $50. The money I received is a gift and is not required to be reported as income on my tax return. I also don't plan on revealing the names of my friends, because it is technically me donating $150 (in fact, I believe it would be illegal for me to reveal their names, because you aren't allowed to give a donation in the name of another).

Setting up a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization to do the same thing shouldn't change the outcome. The donations are still non-deductible, so the government still gets its cut of the $150. The only change is that contributors get a little extra insurance that I'm not going to take their $50 and pocket it, which makes it safer for people to contribute. (This is just for illustration purposes, I realize this technically doesn't even qualify as a 501(c)(4) organization).