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

[werepossum]

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.

Political free speech is not worth much if one cannot spend money to get it out.

 

[PokerGuy]

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.

That might be true, but it is abundantly clear at this point that it wasn't simply "rogue operators", that DC was involved, and that there is a lot more to come. There was obviously a concerted effort to target one party. Whether that rises to criminal behavior is not known yet (still need further investigation), but that was wrongdoing is abundantly clear.

That's why Lerner plead the 5th -- I'm guessing they're going to uncover internal documentation that shows her lying in previous testimony.

 

[PokerGuy]

Given the corrupting influence of money and the fiction that money is protected speech, there also cannot be a democracy with anonymity.

Fiction? That's not fiction at all, it's obvious truth. What good is the freedom to express political views if you are not allowed to use your money to share those views? Is that like saying you are free to protest, as long as you stay in your house to do so?

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.

I don't think whether it's secret or not matters at all. There is (and always has been) plenty of corruption. Why would it be any worse if the source of the money is secret? Does it really matter in the end if it's Bob Smith that paid for some ad instead of Jane Doe? The message is still the same.

 

[Fern]

Fiction? That's not fiction at all, it's obvious truth. What good is the freedom to express political views if you are not allowed to use your money to share those views? Is that like saying you are free to protest, as long as you stay in your house to do so?

Liberals don't like big corporations influencing politics, unless it's Time Warner (CNN) or General Electric (NBC and MSNBC) or Disney (ABC) or CBS Corp, or The New York Times Company. No other big companies should be allowed to spend money on or influence politics, just those.

I don't think whether it's secret or not matters at all. There is (and always has been) plenty of corruption. Why would it be any worse if the source of the money is secret? Does it really matter in the end if it's Bob Smith that paid for some ad instead of Jane Doe? The message is still the same.

Hard to run an effective smear campaign or harass someone out of a job if donations are anonymous.

Fern

 

[Cozarkian]

Then they probably shouldn't seek IRS approval to operate as a non-profit.

That wouldn't help at all, since for-profit PACs are required to disclose donors, they also can't set up an anonymous for-profit organization.

It also doesn't make a lick of difference with regard to governmental income. If I spend $1,000 publishing my own papers for a social welfare campaign, the government gets to tax that $1,000, once, on my income tax. If instead, I give it to a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization to support their social welfare campaign, the government still gets to tax it once, on my income tax.

 

[Bowfinger]

That might be true, but it is abundantly clear at this point that it wasn't simply "rogue operators", that DC was involved, and that there is a lot more to come. There was obviously a concerted effort to target one party. Whether that rises to criminal behavior is not known yet (still need further investigation), but that was wrongdoing is abundantly clear.

That's why Lerner plead the 5th -- I'm guessing they're going to uncover internal documentation that shows her lying in previous testimony.

While I have no doubt that it's "obviously a concerted effort" to fans of Fox and its ilk, it's substantially less clear to those who consider the actual evidence produced so far. Again, I'll wait for the FBI's honest investigation instead of swallowing the RNC-sponsored propaganda.

 

[Bowfinger]

That wouldn't help at all, since for-profit PACs are required to disclose donors, they also can't set up an anonymous for-profit organization.

It also doesn't make a lick of difference with regard to governmental income. If I spend $1,000 publishing my own papers for a social welfare campaign, the government gets to tax that $1,000, once, on my income tax. If instead, I give it to a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization to support their social welfare campaign, the government still gets to tax it once, on my income tax.

You're really missing my point. I don't care about their problems. I do not agree that society has any obligation to help people in their drive to corrupt government. Those intent on doing so deserve no anonymity. If that's inconvenient for them ... good.

 

[Bowfinger]

Liberals don't like big corporations influencing politics, unless it's Time Warner (CNN) or General Electric (NBC and MSNBC) or Disney (ABC) or CBS Corp, or The New York Times Company. No other big companies should be allowed to spend money on or influence politics, just those.

Yawn. Do you get your straw from the same place as Werepossum? If so, I really need to invest in that place.

Hard to run an effective smear campaign or harass someone out of a job if donations are anonymous.

Fern

I don't know about that. Seems Republicans like Karl Rove managed to do so for years, before they hit on this "social welfare organization" scam. Ask John McCain about his black baby or Valerie Plame about her classified CIA job.

 

[Cozarkian]

You're really missing my point. I don't care about their problems. I do not agree that society has any obligation to help people in their drive to corrupt government. Those intent on doing so deserve no anonymity. If that's inconvenient for them ... good.

Society does have an obligation to help people in their drive to fight against a corrupt government, and when government is powerful, anonymity is essential to that purpose.

If that means people need to make a habit of closely scrutinizing and frequently replacing their legislators in order to prevent bribery rather than blindly following party lines and re-electing incumbents, then even better.

 

[Fern]

Yawn. Do you get your straw from the same place as Werepossum? If so, I really need to invest in that place.

Seriously?

Tons of caterwauling about Citizens United and corp's now get to spend money on campaigns but no recognition of the fact that the media,i.e., Big Corporations, presently do more to shape elections than anything else.

"Straw"? I think disconnect from reality a better description.

I don't know about that. Seems Republicans like Karl Rove managed to do so for years, before they hit on this "social welfare organization" scam. Ask John McCain about his black baby or Valerie Plame about her classified CIA job.

Bad example. Karl Rove actually makes money by being known and being vilified by the left. He depends on it. That's not the case with virtually everyone else.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

Fiction? That's not fiction at all, it's obvious truth. What good is the freedom to express political views if you are not allowed to use your money to share those views? Is that like saying you are free to protest, as long as you stay in your house to do so?

No, it's saying if you want to use money as speech, especially when funneled through an IRS-approved non-profit organization, you don't deserve anonymity. PokerGuy can sit at his keyboard, go to a town hall meeting, stand on a street corner, etc., and exercise your free speech rights in anonymity all you want. But if you want to use your money to influence campaigns, We, the People, should have the right to know who's buying.

I don't think whether it's secret or not matters at all. There is (and always has been) plenty of corruption. Why would it be any worse if the source of the money is secret? Does it really matter in the end if it's Bob Smith that paid for some ad instead of Jane Doe? The message is still the same.

I'm sorry. I don't seem to remember Republicans taking that stance when Chinese interests reportedly contributed to the Obama campaign. Of course the source of contributions matter. We deserve to know our elected officials' true owners.

 

[Bowfinger]

Seriously?

Tons of caterwauling about Citizens United and corp's now get to spend money on campaigns but no recognition of the fact that the media,i.e., Big Corporations, presently do more to shape elections than anything else.

"Straw"? I think disconnect from reality a better description.

Sorry, I forgot about that conservatives are victims of the vast liberal conspiracy. Silly me.

Bad example. Karl Rove actually makes money by being known and being vilified by the left. He depends on it. That's not the case with virtually everyone else.

Fern

1. Not my problem.

2. My point was that your innuendo suggesting Democrats were somehow the main instigators of "smear campaigns" and "harassing someone out of a job" is absurdly, blindly partisan.

 

[Fern]

Sorry, I forgot about that conservatives are victims of the vast liberal conspiracy. Silly me.
-snip-

I must assume you're being purposefully dense.

The complaint is hypocritical because 'Big Corporations' have long been using their money to be the primary influence in elections. But the ones I listed are OK. Right? It's just that others shouldn't, right?

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
2. My point was that your innuendo suggesting Democrats were somehow the main instigators of "smear campaigns" and "harassing someone out of a job" is absurdly, blindly partisan.

Yeah. It's just my imagination that the Koch bros are constantly attacked (seen Harry Reid speak lately?) while no mention is made of Soros et al.

Wonder what Brendan Eich thinks?

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Yeah. It's just my imagination that the Koch bros are constantly attacked (seen Harry Reid speak lately?) while no mention is made of Soros et al.

Wonder what Brendan Eich thinks?

Fern

He thinks exactly what the left tells him to think, as will we all eventually.

 

[Bowfinger]

I must assume you're being purposefully dense.

The complaint is hypocritical because 'Big Corporations' have long been using their money to be the primary influence in elections. But the ones I listed are OK. Right? It's just that others shouldn't, right?

Fern

I made no such comment, but I suppose when you cannot support your own argument you put on a brave face and start putting words in others mouths. Maybe you can get Werepossum to show you how to invent claims the Obama administration didn't make while you're at it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Yeah. It's just my imagination that the Koch bros are constantly attacked (seen Harry Reid speak lately?) while no mention is made of Soros et al.

Wonder what Brendan Eich thinks?

Fern

Or perhaps it's English you're struggling with. Once again you're deliberately distorting my comments into dishonest caricatures of what I actually said.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah. It's just my imagination that the Koch bros are constantly attacked (seen Harry Reid speak lately?) while no mention is made of Soros et al.

Wonder what Brendan Eich thinks?

Fern

I have to say that this post is basically proving his point. The right constantly attacks George Soros, Eric Holder, ACORN, etc, etc. hell, they were still attacking ACORN when it didn't even exist anymore.

If you can't see that conservatives are smear merchants all the same as what you see in the democrats you're looking through some pretty tinted glasses.

 

[Bowfinger]

He thinks exactly what the left tells him to think, as will we all eventually.

Awww. Don't cry, sweetie. Try some Preparation H. That butt-hurt must be painful.

 

[schmuckley]

PACs shoul be illegal.
For the IRS to target only "conservative" PACs is wrong.Heads should roll.
All PACs are bad for America.
PS:wat's up with the post above mine?

 

[Bowfinger]

PACs shoul be illegal.
For the IRS to target only "conservative" PACs is wrong.Heads should roll.
All PACs are bad for America.
PS:wat's up with the post above mine?

The IRS didn't target only conservative PACs.

 

[davmat787]

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.

Yes, those in the south who were anti slavery and wanted to support candidates of the same mindset would have loved this.

Instead, why not use public funds to pay for campaigns, once the candidate reaches a certain level of legitimacy? We need to get money out of politics all together, not just make donations public IMO.

99% of congresscritters are millionaires.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah. It's just my imagination that the Koch bros are constantly attacked (seen Harry Reid speak lately?) while no mention is made of Soros et al.

Wonder what Brendan Eich thinks?

Fern

Gawd that's lame. Soros is one of the most vilified people in the world, at least by the fringewhacks.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, those in the south who were anti slavery and wanted to support candidates of the same mindset would have loved this.

Instead, why not use public funds to pay for campaigns, once the candidate reaches a certain level of legitimacy? We need to get money out of politics all together, not just make donations public IMO.

99% of congresscritters are millionaires.

I can't document it, but it seems likely that not all southerners supported slavery at the time. There were, in fact, prominent anti slavery voices & politicians in the upper slave states at the time, probably throughout the region-

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=134

Their opponents actions were to create their own pro-slavery newspapers.

Go figure.

 

[boomerang]

New Emails: Democratic Senator Pressured IRS To Target Groups

The IRS’ Washington, D.C. headquarters targeted conservative groups in part due to pressure from Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, according to emails obtained by the watchdog group Judicial Watch and reviewed by The Daily Caller.

As the election got closer Levin's requests got more urgent and he made suggestions to the IRS deputy commissioner as to how they could get the job done.

Then-IRS deputy commissioner Steven T. Miller sent Levin a 16-page response explaining that the flexibility of IRS rules allow for the agency to “prepare individualized questions and requests.”

“There is no standard questionnaire used to obtain information about political activities,” Miller wrote. “Although there is a template development letter that describes the general information on the case development process, the letter does not specify the information to be requested from any particular organization … Consequently, revenue agents prepare individualized questions and requests for documents relevant to the application. . .”

As TheDC has extensively reported, IRS agents targeted groups’ donors, seized training information, demanded personal information on college interns, and even targeted individuals by name.

The emails obtained by Judicial Watch clearly demonstrate that the targeting was based in Washington, D.C.

IRS official Holly Paz wrote a July 6, 2010 email to Washington-based IRS lawyer Steven Grodnitzky “to let Cindy and Sharon know how we have been handling Tea Party applications in the last few months.” Grodnitzky replied to the email, confirming that the Washington-based Exempt Organization Technical unit (EOT) was designing the targeting in the nation’s capital.

“EOT is working the Tea party applications in coordination with Cincy. We are developing a few applications here in DC and providing copies of our development letters with the agent to use as examples in the development of their cases,” Grodnitzky wrote.

So, the IRS investigation ramps up. We are discovering who the key players are. Our government, which decided the best course of action was to conceal information, not provide documents and tell various lies to cover their asses is being exposed by lawsuits for document releases under the FOIA.

And this is not the only investigation underway in which they have followed the same course of action. Benghazi is ongoing and the VA investigation is just starting.

This administration of incompetent malcontents, hell bent on fundamentally transforming the nation can barely tie their shoes. They have got the government tied up investigating the actions of the government.

What's the good in the middle of all this bad? The good is that we have a government that still will release documents when they are sued. For transparency to be in effect, a lawsuit must first be filed. Will there come a point when the lawsuits are ignored? Stay tuned. 981 days to go.