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

[bshole]

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.)

Agreed. It is a vital for truly democratic societies that anonymity is impossible for people who are paying huge sums of money to affect changes to our laws/elections.

 

[Angry Irishman]

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.

Blinders...you're wearing them.

 

[TerryMathews]

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.

Ah yes. And white jury members should have to take a polygraph. Amirite?

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Spread that FUD! Defend the current prerogatives of big money as if they really apply to ordinary people.

You're spreading hogwash as if employers will spend the time to scour the donor lists of all the political organizations out there for what they'll basically already know about their employees in the first place.

 

[bshole]

Ah yes. And white jury members should have to take a polygraph. Amirite?

Well wait a second, you guys have spent this entire thread proving that conservative groups have been under close scrutiny by the IRS. Assuming that the IRS is a non-partisan group simply enforcing our laws, the question has to be, what have these conservative groups done to merit this close scrunity?

You guys are barking up the wrong tree. Instead of looking for malfeasance in the IRS, you should be looking for corruption and crime in the conservative groups.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well wait a second, you guys have spent this entire thread proving that conservative groups have been under close scrutiny by the IRS. Assuming that the IRS is a non-partisan group simply enforcing our laws, the question has to be, what have these conservative groups done to merit this close scrunity?

You guys are barking up the wrong tree. Instead of looking for malfeasance in the IRS, you should be looking for corruption and crime in the conservative groups.

No! Nooo! Couldn't be! Impossible! Aiiiieeee! No!

Ebil Gubmint! EEEeebil!

 

[TerryMathews]

Well wait a second, you guys have spent this entire thread proving that conservative groups have been under close scrutiny by the IRS. Assuming that the IRS is a non-partisan group simply enforcing our laws, the question has to be, what have these conservative groups done to merit this close scrunity?

You guys are barking up the wrong tree. Instead of looking for malfeasance in the IRS, you should be looking for corruption and crime in the conservative groups.

You're assuming facts not in evidence counselor.

 

[nehalem256]

Spread that FUD! Defend the current prerogatives of big money as if they really apply to ordinary people.

You're spreading hogwash as if employers will spend the time to scour the donor lists of all the political organizations out there for what they'll basically already know about their employees in the first place.

So you missed the whole Mozilla CEO scandal huh?

 

[Jhhnn]

You're assuming facts not in evidence counselor.

And you're assuming OMFG Conspiracy! believing anything to the contrary with the evidence available.

The notion that the IRS wouldn't target groups with a rabid anti-tax bent is absurd, regardless of the group's political leanings.

I mean, Duh!

 

[Jhhnn]

So you missed the whole Mozilla CEO scandal huh?

Which wasn't about the employer digging up dirt on the employees, was it?

Making Eich the poster boy for anonymous political donations is absurd. His sentiments were undoubtedly well known before that kerfuffle. He was, is, and will remain incredibly & unassailably wealthy in any case- a guy who needs a job only to satisfy his own ego.

That applies to the whining from the Koch bros & the rest, as well. They're the people with the power.

 

[TerryMathews]

And you're assuming OMFG Conspiracy! believing anything to the contrary with the evidence available.

The notion that the IRS wouldn't target groups with a rabid anti-tax bent is absurd, regardless of the group's political leanings.

I mean, Duh!

So what did Lerner apologize for?

 

[werepossum]

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.

Under that "logic" you could justify any treatment of any group since the fact that you're treating them differently proves that they need to be treated differently.

And you're assuming OMFG Conspiracy! believing anything to the contrary with the evidence available.

The notion that the IRS wouldn't target groups with a rabid anti-tax bent is absurd, regardless of the group's political leanings.

I mean, Duh!

Yeah, who cares about the law and equal protection? The real need here is that government uses its most feared agency to enforce government's preferences.

 

[Jhhnn]

So what did Lerner apologize for?

Beat that dead horse! She apologized for the IRS using improper bolo lists.

However, in these cases, the way they did the centralization was not so fine. Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list. They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate — that’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review. We don’t select for review because they have a particular name.

Read the whole thing yourself instead of just listening to Faux News & the Washington Times-

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50160

Facts are one thing, right wing spin is entirely another, as usual.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, who cares about the law and equal protection? The real need here is that government uses its most feared agency to enforce government's preferences.

Your real need is apparently to cast aspersions of propaganda. The govt's preference to collect taxes owed by law is entirely reasonable, unassailable by all but anti-tax ravers like yourself.

 

[Fern]

And you're assuming OMFG Conspiracy! believing anything to the contrary with the evidence available.

The notion that the IRS wouldn't target groups with a rabid anti-tax bent is absurd, regardless of the group's political leanings.

I mean, Duh!

No, the IRS shouldn't be targeting groups that have a political position opposed to tax increases. ("rabid anti-tax bent". Really?)

The IRS is not an advocacy agency. They have no business concerning themselves with political policy.

The IRS is an administrative agency with some responsibility for enforcement (the DoJ have the greater share of enforcement responsibility). Therefore it would be appropriate for the IRS to target groups that promote/encourage tax fraud (and they do exist).

I.e., you're dishonestly equating/conflating a political position (like the one held by our FF) to criminal activity. Promoting lower taxes =/= promoting tax fraud.

Fern

 

[Fern]

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.

501(c)(4) cannot donate etc to "campaigns".

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

501(c)(4) cannot donate etc to "campaigns".

Fern

He just said 'spend dollars to influence political campaigns', not donate to campaigns. 501(c)(4) groups can most certainly spend money to influence campaigns, directly endorse candidates, etc.

 

[PokerGuy]

More documents released: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ampaign-directed-headquarters-Washington.html

Looks like the lies keep getting bigger as more information is revealed. Carl Levin had been sending letters to the IRS urging them to muzzle conservative groups, and the new documents directly contradict the story about it being 'rogue operators' in Cincy -- instructions came directly from DC, including instructions on how to identify groups that need further scrutiny.

Of course our resident lefties won't have a problem with this, they are not at all concerned with IRS being used as an attack dog against political opposition, as long as the opposition are conservatives.

 

[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.

Another point, I'm thinking the founders and supporters of the Underground Railroad would have wanted to also support political campaigns to abolish slavery and to elect officials willing to do so.

Their inability to do so anonymously would force them to reveal their anti-slavery sympathies, subjecting themselves to scrutiny that would compromise their ability to assist the Underground Railroad.

 

[PokerGuy]

We'll have to agree to disagree. If you want to fund organizations working to change elections,

I disagree -- in order to bring about changes that are not politically popular, it is absolutely vital that there be anonymity. In fact, I'd argue that without anonymity there can't be a democracy, you'll just end up with a mob rule mentality where everyone who doesn't adhere to politically correct doctrine gets pummeled and all dissenting viewpoints get squashed. We're seeing a lot that happening now in the age of social media and such.

 

[werepossum]

I disagree -- in order to bring about changes that are not politically popular, it is absolutely vital that there be anonymity. In fact, I'd argue that without anonymity there can't be a democracy, you'll just end up with a mob rule mentality where everyone who doesn't adhere to politically correct doctrine gets pummeled and all dissenting viewpoints get squashed.

Well said.

 

[Bowfinger]

Another point, I'm thinking the founders and supporters of the Underground Railroad would have wanted to also support political campaigns to abolish slavery and to elect officials willing to do so.

Their inability to do so anonymously would force them to reveal their anti-slavery sympathies, subjecting themselves to scrutiny that would compromise their ability to assist the Underground Railroad.

Then they probably shouldn't seek IRS approval to operate as a non-profit. Freedom of Speech does not guarantee freedom from consequences. You can continue to contrive all sorts of emotion-laden hypotheticals, but the fact remains that money is single greatest factor in corrupting our government. It wholly subverts the one man, one vote principle of democracy.

 

[Bowfinger]

I disagree -- in order to bring about changes that are not politically popular, it is absolutely vital that there be anonymity. In fact, I'd argue that without anonymity there can't be a democracy, you'll just end up with a mob rule mentality where everyone who doesn't adhere to politically correct doctrine gets pummeled and all dissenting viewpoints get squashed. We're seeing a lot that happening now in the age of social media and such.

Given the corrupting influence of money and the fiction that money is protected speech, there also cannot be a democracy with anonymity. Money subverts democracy under the best of circumstances; allowing it to corrupt in secret only aggravates the problem. It would thus seem democracy is doomed.

 

[Bowfinger]

More documents released: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ampaign-directed-headquarters-Washington.html

Looks like the lies keep getting bigger as more information is revealed. Carl Levin had been sending letters to the IRS urging them to muzzle conservative groups, and the new documents directly contradict the story about it being 'rogue operators' in Cincy -- instructions came directly from DC, including instructions on how to identify groups that need further scrutiny.

Of course our resident lefties won't have a problem with this, they are not at all concerned with IRS being used as an attack dog against political opposition, as long as the opposition are conservatives.

Before you get too worked up, bear in mind that the last time Judicial Watch released emails, "the lies" came from the wing-nut propagandists who misrepresented what those emails suggested. Given that this latest batch is over 1,400 messages, I'm not going to read them all, and neither are most people. This therefore leaves the propagandists free to make up pretty much anything they want with little fear of rebuttal. I'll let the FBI do their real investigation and wait for honest conclusions.

 

[Bowfinger]

501(c)(4) cannot donate etc to "campaigns".

Fern

Nor did I say otherwise. They do, however, "influence political campaigns" -- which is exactly what I stated.