• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups[W:484,732]

Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

solletica said:
For one thing, those organizations make diddly squat. Even if they didn't apply for that status, it's hard to imagine they would owe anything.
Click to expand...

awesome. then it should be no problem.

I just don't buy that "social welfare" groups on either side should be allowed a tax status similar to a charity. the fact that donors aren't disclosed also indicates that 501c4 is probably the result of lobbying by entities with big pockets.

donate to whoever you want to, and as much as you want, as far as I'm concerned. however, the rest of us who have to live under the system deserve to know who's buying it.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Helix said:
awesome. then it should be no problem.

I just don't buy that "social welfare" groups on either side should be allowed a tax status similar to a charity. the fact that donors aren't disclosed also indicates that 501c4 is probably the result of lobbying by entities with big pockets.

donate to whoever you want to, and as much as you want, as far as I'm concerned. however, the rest of us who have to live under the system deserve to know who's buying it.
Click to expand...

Theyre non profits. Why should they pay taxes? Why should the govt know who their donors are? People have a right to privacy.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

jonny5 said:
Theyre non profits. Why should they pay taxes? Why should the govt know who their donors are? People have a right to privacy.
Click to expand...

not when they're buying legislation, IMO. i think a big spotlight needs to be put on all political activity. people pour money into the political process to buy influence, and we deserve to know who they are. we are the ones who have to live with the result.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

also, i learned this morning that the person who resigned wasn't running the IRS during all of this.

Douglas Shulman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

unless Miller was a higher up in the IRS at the time, he's just a fall guy.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

How about we get rid of the IRS? At the very least, their power should be severely limited. They have a history of bullying people and businesses, and ruining lives. Do we really want this going on in our government? That's not what they are supposed to do.

I remember them pulling similar crap in the '90's. There were hearings, but here we go again. Now, they are are probing into the personal lives and politics of people that work for or donate to conservative organizations seeking tax exempt status. Absolutely unforgiveable.

This has to stop, and this agency needs to be brought under control, for good.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Mithros said:
The IRS targeted groups that probably should have been targeted, but for the wrong reason. By definition 501(c)(4) groups are not allowed to have a predominatly politial purpose. Instead, that status is reserved for social welfare groups. Good examples of legitimate 501(c)(4) groups are the AARP and the NRA.

What happened in 2010 was that in the aftermath of Citizens United, corporations were suddenly allowed to contribute unlimited amounts of money to influence political campaigns. However, most corporations and CEO's didn't want to have their names and reputations associated with a candidate or position. They wanted to influence elections anonomously, gaining the benifits of supporting a candidate without the backlash from the other side.

By the spirit of the law, these groups should have been filed as tax exempt 527's which are intended primariliy to influence elections. By filing as a 527, they would have been allowed unlimited participation in politics and would have been excempt from the lengthy application process. However, they would have had to make their donors public. Instead they filed as 501(c)(4) groups for the sole purpose of hiding their donors.

In summary: 527's are allowed to be predominatly political, but must release donors. 501(c)(4)'s must not be predominatly political, are much harder to obtain, require far more paperwork, are subject to many more restrictions, but don't have to release donors.

After 2010 there was an explosion of these groups. Before Citizens' united there were around 1500. That doubled over the next year or so. The biggest push was amoung conservative groups. However, liberal groups were also guilty of this abuse.

Filing as a 501(c)(4) was an attempt by many of these groups to skirt the law. It's really impossible to read it any other way. The IRS rightly attempted to crack down on this abuse. However, it did it in a very un-American way. The guidleines should have targeted political groups in general, rather than singling out conservative issues.

This is a significant issue, and it warrents a thorough public investigation. However, it's nothing like Nixon's white house auditing members of the political opposition. For one, the head of the IRS was a Bush appointee.
Click to expand...

Procedural mumbo jumbo, they failed to target liberal groups who should have been targetted. We're not concern about targetting, but the targetting of certain groups and not others in the same category. The IRS allowed Obama-friendly groups to slide through without a glance, but handed non-Obama-friendly groups questionaires that required the production of 500 page responses. And btw, "it's Bush's fault" isn't going to work here. Obama can change any appointee he wants. Appointees are employeed at the pleasure of the President, so get a clue.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Helix said:
not when they're buying legislation, IMO. i think a big spotlight needs to be put on all political activity. people pour money into the political process to buy influence, and we deserve to know who they are. we are the ones who have to live with the result.
Click to expand...

Show me some evidence that legislators are taking bribes.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Mithros said:
The IRS targeted groups that probably should have been targeted, but for the wrong reason. By definition 501(c)(4) groups are not allowed to have a predominatly politial purpose.

In summary: 527's are allowed to be predominatly political, but must release donors. 501(c)(4)'s must not be predominatly political, are much harder to obtain, require far more paperwork, are subject to many more restrictions, but don't have to release donors.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's actually the case. By definition, 501(c)(4) groups CAN have a predominantly political purpose. The distinction between the two is that 527s are formed with the purpose of influencing elections.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

American said:
Procedural mumbo jumbo, they failed to target liberal groups who should have been targetted. We're not concern about targetting, but the targetting of certain groups and not others in the same category. The IRS allowed Obama-friendly groups to slide through without a glance, but handed non-Obama-friendly groups questionaires that required the production of 500 page responses. And btw, "it's Bush's fault" isn't going to work here. Obama can change any appointee he wants. Appointees are employeed at the pleasure of the President, so get a clue.
Click to expand...

"Get a clue?" Such amazing debating skills you have.

IRS chairs are appointed for 5 year terms. The last chair was appointed by Bush and confirmed in early 2008. He served through the end of 2012. Presidents don't deman the resignation of IRS chairs because it's important to keep the agency out of politics.... as this scandal proves.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

jonny5 said:
Show me some evidence that legislators are taking bribes.
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Taylor said:
I don't think that's actually the case. By definition, 501(c)(4) groups CAN have a predominantly political purpose. The distinction between the two is that 527s are formed with the purpose of influencing elections.
Click to expand...

But isn't influencing elections the primary purpose of the Tea Party?
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Taylor said:
I don't think that's actually the case. By definition, 501(c)(4) groups CAN have a predominantly political purpose. The distinction between the two is that 527s are formed with the purpose of influencing elections.
Click to expand...

A 501(c)(4) organization is allowed to participate in a limited amount of political activity so long as it is not the primary purpose of the organization. For example, the NRA is free to run adds, lobby, and engage in politics, but we would not say that the NRA's primary purpose was political.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

rocket88 said:
But isn't influencing elections the primary purpose of the Tea Party?
Click to expand...
No, the "Tea Party" is not a political party but an ideology.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

rocket88 said:
But isn't influencing elections the primary purpose of the Tea Party?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as the Tea Party. There are groups that call themselves Tea Party whatever, and have a variety of purposes, which usually follow the "tea party movement" of opposing more taxation.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Taylor said:
No, the "Tea Party" is not a political party but an ideology.
Click to expand...

That fails to pass the sniff test. The Tea Party is not at all non-political, unlike the NRA which is pro-gun rights and education. Tea Party is strictly a political entity. Them saying otherwise is a ruse that the IRS was right to explore further. However, the IRS should not have lied to Congress.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Taylor said:
No, the "Tea Party" is not a political party but an ideology.
Click to expand...

So these organizations aren't trying to influence elections at all? I know you want to see them as wonderful and above the fray, but from what I've seen they're pretty active participants in democracy.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

jonny5 said:
There is no such thing as the Tea Party. There are groups that call themselves Tea Party whatever, and have a variety of purposes, which usually follow the "tea party movement" of opposing more taxation.
Click to expand...

And these groups attempt to influence elections, do they not?

I'm with you that the IRS was wrong to single them out, but let's at least be honest about what the purpose of these groups is.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

usa today yesterday

In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
Click to expand...

IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold

there will be no avoiding the appointment of a special prosecutor
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

The Prof said:
usa today yesterday



IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold

there will be no avoiding the appointment of a special prosecutor
Click to expand...

The only question I have, which is unanswered here, is did the TP groups answer the same questions as the progressive groups? Did they answer the questions, or did they not answer them?

Now if the questions were the same and the TP groups didn't answer...well that's different then.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

rocket88 said:
And these groups attempt to influence
elections, do they not?

I'm with you that the IRS was wrong to single them out, but let's at least be honest about what the purpose of these groups is.
Click to expand...

Its the purpose of any PAC left or right to influence elections.

The issue id that right wing political action groups were singled out as left wing groups were passed through.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

rocket88 said:
The only question I have, which is unanswered here, is did the TP groups
answer the same questions as the progressive groups? Did they answer the questions, or did they not answer them?

Now if the questions were the same and the TP groups didn't answer...well that's different then.
Click to expand...

What ?? You mean the pages and pages of extra bureacratic red tape that TP groups were forced to contend with compared to the left wing PACs that were passed through ?
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

more favored groups didn't answer because they were never asked

The IRS wants YOU
 
Last edited:
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Mithros said:
A 501(c)(4) organization is allowed to participate in a limited amount of political activity so long as it is not the primary purpose of the organization. For example, the NRA is free to run adds, lobby, and engage in politics, but we would not say that the NRA's primary purpose was political.
Click to expand...
Okay - I think we actually agree on the difference between the two, just weren't in agreement with what falls under the umbrella of "political activity". Just to be clear, 501(c)(4) groups can have as their primary (or sole) purpose lobbying for political issues; they can't be formed primarily to support candidates for public office.

Thus, I could create a 501(c)(4) devoted to the defeat of Obamacare, or raising taxes on the wealthy. My 501(c)(4) could even throw support behind the candidates that champion these issues. My 501(c)(4) cannot, however, make support for those candidates my primary purpose.

In other words, my organization is allowed to participate in a limited amount of political campaign activity so long as it is not the primary purpose of the organization.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

jonny5 said:
Show me some evidence that legislators are taking bribes.
Click to expand...

lobbying / influence peddling isn't as simple or crude as bribery.

are you honestly trying to argue that money isn't a significant factor in influencing legislation?
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Fenton said:
What ?? You mean the pages and pages of extra bureacratic red tape that TP groups were forced to contend with compared to the left wing PACs that were passed through ?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any of the paperwork. I've seen things that people are saying were "unnecessary questions" and while some of them undoubtedly were, if the progressive PACs were asked the same questions it's not a question of unfair treatment.

I don't doubt that there was unfair treatment. I'm just saying that looking at "Liberal group approved, TP group not approved" doesn't tell you the whole story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom