Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Panthers_Lover

IRS IG Report: Targeting Conservatives Began In 2010

104 posts in this topic

Well, this definately had nothing to do with the mid terms. Just like Benghazi had nothing to do with terrorists.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad you really can't throw a Y on Obama and make it Obamayism like McCarthyism....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo! 

 

I call this a good start and long overdue.   These type of organizations, right or left leaning, need to be put under more rigorous inspection before being approved for tax exempt status.  Many of them are simply front organizations for big corporations attempting to push political agendas without risking damage to their carefully crafted public images.  The Citizens United ruling, "money equals free speech" has unleashed a flood of dark money, but these organizations, little more than thinly veiled PACs, have no right to expect tax exempt status while pushing a partisan political agenda. 

 

Now the IRS needs to go after the "mother" of all disingenuous, tax evading, political organizations... churches.

 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/398531/september-29-2011/colbert-super-pac---trevor-potter---stephen-s-shell-corporation

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance Salyers@lancesalyers

@EdMorrissey In Mar2010, IRS began targeting TEA Partiers, who opposed ObamaCare, which was signed into law Mar2010. #NotACoincidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo! 

 

I call this a good start and long overdue.   These type of organizations, right or left leaning, need to be put under more rigorous inspection before being approved for tax exempt status.  Many of them are simply front organizations for big corporations attempting to push political agendas without risking damage to their carefully crafted public images.  The Citizens United ruling, "money equals free speech" has unleashed a flood of dark money, but these organizations, little more than thinly veiled PACs, have no right to expect tax exempt status while pushing a partisan political agenda. 

 

Now the IRS needs to go after the "mother" of all disingenuous, tax evading, political organizations... churches.

 

How dare people freely associate, collect funding, and support their cause. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo! 

 

I call this a good start and long overdue.   These type of organizations, right or left leaning, need to be put under more rigorous inspection before being approved for tax exempt status.  Many of them are simply front organizations for big corporations attempting to push political agendas without risking damage to their carefully crafted public images.  The Citizens United ruling, "money equals free speech" has unleashed a flood of dark money, but these organizations, little more than thinly veiled PACs, have no right to expect tax exempt status while pushing a partisan political agenda. 

 

Now the IRS needs to go after the "mother" of all disingenuous, tax evading, political organizations... churches.

 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/398531/september-29-2011/colbert-super-pac---trevor-potter---stephen-s-shell-corporation

Yeah, & while we're at it we'll tax all groups that rely on public donations. Time to audit the red cross and salvation army. Whats acorn up to these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How dare people freely associate, collect funding, and support their cause. 

To a point there is nothing wrong with that, but when an organization applies for tax exempt status, it should anticipate having to fill out numerous forms and anticipate IRS agents will try to verify the information provided.

 

It is not a big secret, there is a problem with money laundering in politics.  Especially in the last few elections.  The problem isn't that these applications were carefully vetted.  The problem is the IRS doesn't have the agents to thoroughly investigate all applicants.  Therefore, the IRS has to profile (something conservatives are usually in favor of) based on indicators (in this case words) that are most often associated with fraudulent behavior.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To a point there is nothing wrong with that, but when an organization applies for tax exempt status, it should anticipate having to fill out numerous forms and anticipate IRS agents will try to verify the information provided.

 

It is not a big secret, there is a problem with money laundering in politics.  Especially in the last few elections.  The problem isn't that these applications were carefully vetted.  The problem is the IRS doesn't have the agents to thoroughly investigate all applicants.  Therefore, the IRS has to profile (something conservatives are usually are in favor of) based on indicators (in this case words) that are most often associated with fraudulent behavior.

 

Seriously? Wow. Are you really Jay Carney?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't read through this thoroughly, and since it's Ezra Klein I'm sure people will dismiss it outright, but...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/13/wonkbook-the-good-reasons-for-the-irss-dumb-mistake/

 

 

The story thus far seems both chilling and cheering. Employees at the agency’s Cincinnati branch did employ a test that, in effect, targeted tea party groups. Whether they meant it to be discriminatory or they simply created one that was discriminatory is in contention, but ultimately immaterial. The IRS, more so than almost any other agency, must act in ways above reproach.

 

But when the Cincinnati group explained their test to IRS exempt organizations division chief Lois G. Lerner, she objected to it and it was changed. A few months later, the IRS would release new guidance that suggested scrutinizing “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement,” and after that, “organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (raising questions as to exempt purpose and/or excess private benefit.)”
 
The context for all this is that after Citizens United and some related decisions, the number of groups registering as 501©4s doubled. Because the timing of that doubling coincided with a rise in political activism on the right rather than the left, a lot of the politicized groups attempting to register as 501©4s were describing their purpose in tea party terms. A popular conceit, for instance, was that they existed to educate on the Constitution — even if the particular pedagogical method meant participating in Republican Party primaries and pressuring incumbent politicians.
 
In looking for that kind of language in 2010, the Cincinnati employees were attempting to create a usable shortcut. Like Willie Sutton robbing banks, they were going where the action was. But they needed a clearer test that also identified the language of the left, even if left-leaning groups weren’t exhibiting the same surge in activism. And, frankly, it shouldn’t have been left to career employees in Cincinnati. The IRS needed clearer rules coming from the top. But the top didn’t know what to do with these 501©4s, in part because it feared a situation precisely like this one.
 
It is worth remembering an important fact here: The IRS is supposed to reject groups that are primarily political from registering as 501©4s. If they’re going to do that, then they need some kind of test that helps them flag problematic applicants. And that test will have to be a bit impressionistic. It will mean taking the political rhetoric of the moment and watching for it in applications. It will require digging into the finances and activities of groups on the left and the right that seem to be political even as they’re promising their activities are primarily non-political.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure that 29% is above 30% now. Keep it going...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites