Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

IRS IG Report: Targeting Conservatives Began In 2010


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#16 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,437 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 13 May 2013 - 01:43 PM

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.colbertna...ell-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?



#17 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,093 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 13 May 2013 - 02:16 PM

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.

 



#18 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,025 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 13 May 2013 - 02:18 PM

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?



#19 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,371 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 02:21 PM

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

http://www.washingto...s-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.

 



#20 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,328 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 13 May 2013 - 02:40 PM

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

#21 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,093 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 13 May 2013 - 02:48 PM

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?

What is your issue with auditing?  It is a standard practice in business and government.  Or are you just not in favor of learning the truth?

 

ACORN was investigated thoroughly in 2010 and here is the result...

 

On Monday, June 14, a preliminary probe by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)of ACORN has found no evidence the association or related organizations mishandled the $40 million in federal money they received in recent years.

 

A review of grants by nine federal agencies found no problems with ACORN's grants.

 

The GAO, an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, is often called the "congressional watchdog." It investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars.

Nearly two dozen members of Congress requested an investigation after a series of complaints against ACORN and its affiliates. The complaints included an embezzlement matter, several cases of voter registration fraud, and the release of edited and misleading videotapes, secretly made by conservative activists that appeared to implicate ACORN workers in several offices facilitating prostitution. In fact the staff in most of ACORN's offices turned the pair away, reported the couple to the police, refused to provide them any aid, and in one case tried to convince the phony prostitute to get counseling. In no ACORN office did employees file any paperwork or do anything illegal on the duo's behalf.

 

But Fox News broadcasted the deceptive tapes nearly around the clock for several days defaming ACORN.

While Republicans in Congress, who for years had accused ACORN of corruption, used the phony tapes to lead an effort to successfully strip the group of federal funding in 2009. Months later the group was exonerated from any wrongdoing by every official and independent investigation.

http://www.huffingto...g_b_612265.html

 



#22 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,838 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 02:57 PM

At the end of the day, anyone hoping that this reaches up to the White House and Obama was directing the CIA to do this is probably going to be disappointed.



#23 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,093 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 13 May 2013 - 03:08 PM

Anyone seeing the trend here? 

 

Republicans, completely lacking in any substantive arguments as to why the public should vote for them in 2014, are resorting to their last and best hope... slinging chit like a tribe of irate monkeys, hoping that something, anything sticks.  It reeks of fear and desperation.



#24 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,025 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 13 May 2013 - 03:40 PM

Anyone seeing the trend here? 

 

Republicans, completely lacking in any substantive arguments as to why the public should vote for them in 2014, are resorting to their last and best hope... slinging chit like a tribe of irate monkeys, hoping that something, anything sticks.  It reeks of fear and desperation.

 

And liberals resorting to "move along, nothing to see here, these aren't the droids you're looking for" mentality. Awesome.



#25 boostownsme

boostownsme

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 04:01 PM

Anyone seeing the trend here? 

 

Republicans, completely lacking in any substantive arguments as to why the public should vote for them in 2014, are resorting to their last and best hope... slinging chit like a tribe of irate monkeys, hoping that something, anything sticks.  It reeks of fear and desperation.

 

Did you just refer to an entire political party as monkeys? That's not very progressive of you.



#26 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,731 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 04:16 PM

I read about this a couple days ago.  A couple of things to note:  

 

1. before you put your conspiracy hat on remember the head of the IRS was a Bush appointee at the time  

 

2.  these groups were being targeted to make sure their main purpose was not political in nature as such groups would not qualify.  Your non-profit can be politically active but it can't be your main purpose - having 'tea party' in your organization's name certainly raises a flag.

 

3.  it was clearly wrong, don't try to spin it otherwise

 

The AP article is much more informative than the little snippet from abc.  

 

http://bigstory.ap.o...ervative-groups

 



#27 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,093 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 13 May 2013 - 04:21 PM

And liberals resorting to "move along, nothing to see here, these aren't the droids you're looking for" mentality. Awesome.

As I mentioned in another thread, there are plenty of important issues for Congress to investigate.  This does not appear to be one of them.   

 

If Republicans want to uncover real corruption in the White House, look no further than the administration's close ties to Wall Street and an Attorney General that admitted he won't make an effort to prosecute the big banks for the financial melt down in 2008.  It would be a slam dunk, but it won't happen.  Why?  Because there would be too many people in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, caught with their hands in the cookie jar.  Same thing with the War in Iraq.   

 

Instead the American public is served up political theater on issues that lower level bureaucrats should be tasked with solving.  Congress is doing what Congress does, trying to look busy and score easy points against their political opponents, all-the-while avoiding the tough issues that require real work and sacrifice on their part. 

 

You know like the economy, jobs, health care, energy and environmental issues that actually impact our society and our children's futures.



#28 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,093 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 13 May 2013 - 04:30 PM

Did you just refer to an entire political party as monkeys? That's not very progressive of you.

No I didn't refer to republicans as monkeys.  

 

To be exact, what I said was, "Republicans... are slinging chit "like" a tribe of monkeys".  

 

But in a sense you are right, slinging chit is not conducive to progress.



#29 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,002 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 04:41 PM

this is actually p outrageous

its like racial profiling

 

when you consider the fact that taxes are literally slavery, this is way worse than "just" racial profiling



#30 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,729 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 13 May 2013 - 06:22 PM

What if I consider both foundations for likely terrorism?

 

 

My concern here is someone directed the IRS to look into these groups for some reason.

 

It appears to be because they are questioning the tax system and/or were mostly (read all) conservative.

 

Replace "Tea Party" with Black/White/Baptist/Pagan/Short/Tall etc. The IRS was instructed to profile.  Peeps want to know why.

 

dick move: profiling anyone who is individually a conservative for extra analysis because they are conservatives.

 

utilitarian, justified, non-dick move: analyzing certain factions of conservative tea party organizations (not all conservatives are tea-partiers, which is why this headline on the OP is so misleading, probably intentionally so) for keywords that indicate fraudulent activity related to an ideology which is inherently anti-tax.

 

that's the difference between profiling and doing your job in this case, just like in airports where strip searching a person for being brown and wearing a turban is super douchey, but strip searching a person for being brown and wearing a turban dashing through airport security with a package hidden under a vest is due diligence. 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.