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

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

mak2 said:

What they did was wrong and they should be prosecuted/fired, whatever is appropriate. I do not believe it went up the chain of command. Lots of Republicans are getting the base stirred up with these anecdotal instances of people getting harassed for donating to the RNC etc. That part I dont believe.

Click to expand...

So you will ignore logic, common since, and critical thinking, because if you applied any of that it would be so perfectly clear that even a 12 year old would come to the conclusion it goes straight to the top.
All you need to ask is MOTIVE who benefited from the IRS targeting political opposition during an election year.
You can play dumb and stupid all you want but it accomplishes nothing but confirming you are an ideologue partisan koolAid drinking hack

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

Mithros said:

Here's an article about disclosure
http://afjactioncampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/501c4-Reporting.pdf
If you set up an SSF, here's the form you have to file. http://fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm3x.pdf , I believe that pages 20 and 21 are where donors exceeding some amount must be disclosed.

Organizations engaging in independent expenditures, must fill out http://fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm5.pdf. You'll note that all donations over 200$ received for the purpose of making an independent expenditure must be reported.

Click to expand...

According to the FEC you do not disclose unless a donor specifically says "I'm giving you this money for the express purpose of making this independent expenditure..."

Nobody does that, lol (I wonder why...)

See Van Hollen v. FEC
"By adding an additional 'purpose' requirement regarding what donors had to be disclosed, the FEC’s rule opened a large loophole in the federal disclosure requirements, allowing donors to outside groups to avoid disclosure requirements simply by refraining from earmarking their donations for a specific electioneering purpose."

also...
"On September 17th, 2012 the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia handed down what will undoubtedly be viewed by many as a controversial ruling. With campaign finance on the minds of most voters in this extraordinarily contested election season, the Court ruled that the FEC did not overstep its authority in allowing IRC 501(c)(4) organizations to keep their donors secret. The issue in the case was whether the FEC’s regulation that allowed 501(c)(4) groups to conduct electioneering communications without disclosing their donors was simply an regulatory interpretation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law or a violation of that law."

Needless to say, the requirement only came about with McCain-Feingold about 8 years before Citizens United, and has never had much of an effect on disclosure, hence the (failed) lawsuit vs. the FEC to force them to enforce it.

This was the law before Citizens United, and it's the law now. What has changed is that Citizens United allows companies and organizations to contribute to the independent expenditure fund with their general treasury.

Click to expand...

Which is sort of what I've been trying to say all along - Citizens United did not change the 501(c)(4) - it changed who could jump into the vehicle.

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

Travelsonic said:

Been watching this all morning on Fox News... somebody - or a lot of "somebodies" - is/are in deep, deep, deep ****.

Click to expand...

don't think so
these were civil servants trying to get the job done under the existing laws, rules and regulations

they sorted out the routine from the non-routine to accomplish that
and the non-routine included organizations whose names gave an indication of political activity

then it had to be determined whether the amount of political activity the applicant engaged in would rise to the level which could be called "primary"
if that was found, the applicant could not be approved as tax exempt under internal revenue code 501c4

now ponder how the specialist would assess how much of an organization's activities were spent performing social work versus activities spent engaged in political campaign activities

to me, that is quite a difficult burden, to divine whether the organization that engaged in both activities performed more of one than the other. it would seem to be information intensive

adding to the burden was the lack of technical direction from senior IRS officials, plus the revolving door of acting managers in a variety of units involved in providing the repeated requested technical clarity



i am likely more sympathetic to the employees' circumstance than many. much of my career was spent administering a federal affirmative action program. requests for clarification from HQ were more often than not ignored. meanwhile, the work in the field had to proceed. so, we concocted our own criteria to fill the void
we knew to cover our asses while doing so, effecting memos for the record to document why we took actions which were non-routine, just in case some inquiry such as this at the IRS impacted our division

the IRS issues are two-fold. the regulations are subjective when they need to be objective regarding what constitutes "primary" activity. and in the absence of that clarity, senior management needed to provide an interim document/benchmark to be used by all specialists in making the call whether an applicant was eligible for tax exempt status or not
when that clarity was not provided, the staff constructed their own; we now know it as BOLO

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

:lamoOf course.

trfjr said:

So you will ignore logic, common since, and critical thinking, because if you applied any of that it would be so perfectly clear that even a 12 year old would come to the conclusion it goes straight to the top.
All you need to ask is MOTIVE who benefited from the IRS targeting political opposition during an election year.
You can play dumb and stupid all you want but it accomplishes nothing but confirming you are an ideologue partisan koolAid drinking hack

Click to expand...

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

justabubba said:

don't think so
these were civil servants trying to get the job done under the existing laws, rules and regulations

they sorted out the routine from the non-routine to accomplish that
and the non-routine included organizations whose names gave an indication of political activity

then it had to be determined whether the amount of political activity the applicant engaged in would rise to the level which could be called "primary"
if that was found, the applicant could not be approved as tax exempt under internal revenue code 501c4

now ponder how the specialist would assess how much of an organization's activities were spent performing social work versus activities spent engaged in political campaign activities

to me, that is quite a difficult burden, to divine whether the organization that engaged in both activities performed more of one than the other. it would seem to be information intensive

adding to the burden was the lack of technical direction from senior IRS officials, plus the revolving door of acting managers in a variety of units involved in providing the repeated requested technical clarity



i am likely more sympathetic to the employees' circumstance than many. much of my career was spent administering a federal affirmative action program. requests for clarification from HQ were more often than not ignored. meanwhile, the work in the field had to proceed. so, we concocted our own criteria to fill the void
we knew to cover our asses while doing so, effecting memos for the record to document why we took actions which were non-routine, just in case some inquiry such as this at the IRS impacted our division

the IRS issues are two-fold. the regulations are subjective when they need to be objective regarding what constitutes "primary" activity. and in the absence of that clarity, senior management needed to provide an interim document/benchmark to be used by all specialists in making the call whether an applicant was eligible for tax exempt status or not
when that clarity was not provided, the staff constructed their own; we now know it as BOLO

Click to expand...

got a question if it wasn't politically motivated then why wasn't the word "Progressive" on the targeting list? another who ignores any logic, common since, and critical thinking

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

Best smack down ever

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

Taylor said:

According to the FEC you do not disclose unless a donor specifically says "I'm giving you this money for the express purpose of making this independent expenditure..."

Nobody does that, lol (I wonder why...)

See Van Hollen v. FEC
"By adding an additional 'purpose' requirement regarding what donors had to be disclosed, the FEC’s rule opened a large loophole in the federal disclosure requirements, allowing donors to outside groups to avoid disclosure requirements simply by refraining from earmarking their donations for a specific electioneering purpose."

also...
"On September 17th, 2012 the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia handed down what will undoubtedly be viewed by many as a controversial ruling. With campaign finance on the minds of most voters in this extraordinarily contested election season, the Court ruled that the FEC did not overstep its authority in allowing IRC 501(c)(4) organizations to keep their donors secret. The issue in the case was whether the FEC’s regulation that allowed 501(c)(4) groups to conduct electioneering communications without disclosing their donors was simply an regulatory interpretation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law or a violation of that law."

Needless to say, the requirement only came about with McCain-Feingold about 8 years before Citizens United, and has never had much of an effect on disclosure, hence the (failed) lawsuit vs. the FEC to force them to enforce it.


Which is sort of what I've been trying to say all along - Citizens United did not change the 501(c)(4) - it changed who could jump into the vehicle.

Click to expand...

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as BCRA or McCain–Feingold Act)—specifically §203, which modified the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. § 441b—prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.
​

A 501(c)(4) could not take a donation and put it in the independant expenditure account unless the donor specifically requested it. If they requested it, then their donation would have to be disclosed.


Before Citizens United: Donors could anonymously donate to a 501(c)(4)s general fund, but general funds couldn't be used for campaign adds. Donors could however publicly donate to a 501(c)(4)'s SSF or Independent expenditure fund.. and these are the only funds which a 501(c)(4) could use to run adds.

After Citizens United, Donors could anonymously donate to a 501(c)(4)s general fund, and that general fund could now be used to run adds.

Citizens' united didn't change the type of things a 501(c)(4), business, or union, could do. It changed how they were allowed to pay for it.

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

Mithros said:

Which part was dishonest? Which part was an ad-hominem argument against Republicans? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem. That's where you say that someone's argument is wrong because they're dumb/stupid/liar/ etc... That is different than saying that someone is being ridiculous because of positions they're taking.

Notice I'm talking about some conservatives, not all. In particular it's ones like Fenton. If the word some wasn't there, then you'd have a point. The second part is an unbacked assertion, but I think it stands.

Also an unbacked assertion, but I'd stand by it. There were calls to impeach Obama almost before he took office.

A third assertion, supported by the next paragraph.

Supporting evidence for the previous paragraph.

An analogy, albeit a moderatly ridiculous one.

Now a real argument ad hominem would be one where I discount the meat of a post through name-calling. For example, I could say that points 1, 2, and 3, are wrong because they're just talking points. That's ad hominem. (Sorry, I'm an engineer and sometimes I just can't help myself)

Click to expand...

Too much splits. moving on

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

Moderator's Warning:

Remember to keep things civil.

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

trfjr said:

got a question if it wasn't politically motivated then why wasn't the word "Progressive" on the targeting list?used another who ignores any logic, common since, and critical thinking

Click to expand...

was it not?
other progressive attributes in the organization names, such as "patriots" and "we the people" caused the applications to be placed into the non-routine category, requiring deeper research about the degree of political activities in which they were engaged

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

trfjr said:

All you need to ask is MOTIVE who benefited

Click to expand...

IOW, bush* planned 9/11 and republicans ordered the attack on Benghazi :screwy

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

trfjr said:

Best smack down ever

Click to expand...

Thanks for the post.

Every taxpayer should view it.

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

trfjr said:

Best smack down ever

Click to expand...

would you please explain when the smack down occurred
i did not see it
all i saw was a sanctimonious bastard use his five minutes NOT to ask questions of the person who was directed to be there to provide answers to congressional questions - but who instead spent his five minutes making a rambling, disjointed, unsubstantiated rant in front of the assembled tv cameras
again, where was the smack down? i would have loved to have watched it

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

justabubba said:

would you please explain when the smack down occurred
i did not see it
all i saw was a sanctimonious bastard use his five minutes NOT to ask questions of the person who was directed to be there to provide answers to congressional questions - but who instead spent his five minutes making a rambling, disjointed, unsubstantiated rant in front of the assembled tv cameras
again, where was the smack down? i would have loved to have watched it

Click to expand...

Interesting.

I suspect what many people saw while viewing this particular video, was evidence that the only sanctimonious bastard at the hearing was the one who was directed to be there to answer questions, and clearly did not. Seems he was called to the mat because of it.

What Rep. Kelly said about sitting on the other side of the table from an IRA auditor should send a chill down every taxpayers spine.

I guess that reality gets lost on some.

Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

justabubba said:

was it not?
other progressive attributes in the organization names, such as "patriots" and "we the people"
caused the applications to be placed into the non-routine category, requiring deeper research about the degree of political activities in which they were engaged

Click to expand...

President Obama's General Council was alerted to the IGs findings 3 weeks before Obama publicly stated he found out about it.

Do you actually think that Obama's General Counsel withheld that data from Obama for 3 WEEKS ?

Withheld the IG's list that showed targeting based on ideology ? A situation as serious as the IRS being used to target Obama's political opponents, you actually think Obama was informed by News ?

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

ocean515 said:

Interesting.

I suspect what many people saw while viewing this particular video, was evidence that the only sanctimonious bastard at the hearing was the one who was directed to be there to answer questions, and clearly did not. Seems he was called to the mat because of it.

What Rep. Kelly said about sitting on the other side of the table from an IRA auditor should send a chill down every taxpayers spine.

I guess that reality gets lost on some.

Click to expand...

maybe because i tend to be objective in my assessments, there is no reason to fear the IRS and/or its actions
but i realize your side tends to be quite fearful and often afraid of the dark. that normally comes from ignorance

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

justabubba said:

would you please explain when the smack down occurred
i did not see it
all i saw was a sanctimonious bastard use his five minutes NOT to ask questions of the person who was directed to be there to provide answers to congressional questions - but who instead spent his five minutes making a rambling, disjointed, unsubstantiated rant in front of the assembled tv cameras
again, where was the smack down? i would have loved to have watched it

Click to expand...

I guess all the ones who gave him a standing ovation for putting the IRS in their place says different. I have never seen a standing ovation at a congressional hearing. have you?

Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

ocean515 said:

Interesting.

I suspect what many people saw while viewing this particular video, was evidence that the only sanctimonious bastard at the hearing was the one
who was directed to be there to answer questions, and clearly did not. Seems he was called to the mat because of it.

What Rep. Kelly said about sitting on the other side of the table from an IRA auditor should send a chill down every taxpayers spine.

I guess that reality gets lost on some.

Click to expand...

Not on me. The guy was clearly trying to dance around the question.

You know this doesn't even speak to the IRS leaking donors list from Conservative organizations.

Illegally to the Democrat party and to left wing activist organizations.

I mean the IRS targeting Conservative groups is only the tip of the ice berg.

Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

Fenton said:

President Obama's General Council was alerted to the IGs findings 3 weeks before Obama publicly stated he found out about it.

Do you actually think that Obama's General Counsel withheld that data from Obama for 3 WEEKS ?

Withheld the IG's list that showed targeting based on ideology ? A situation as serious as the IRS being used to target Obama's political opponents, you actually think Obama was informed by News ?

Click to expand...

there was NO targeting
there was a reasonable identification of applicants for tax exclusion whose application gave indication of political activity
which activity had to be examined to determine whether said political activity was primarily what the organization was engaged in
such as tea party organizations
or patriot organizations

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

trfjr said:

I guess all the ones who gave him a standing ovation for putting the IRS in their place says different. I have never seen a standing ovation at a congressional hearing. have you?

Click to expand...

yes
a room full of partisans applauding nonsense
tells us what?
that there were a roomful of easily swayed partisans in the audience
wow

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

justabubba said:

maybe because i tend to be objective in my assessments, there is no reason to fear the IRS and/or its actions
but i realize your side tends to be quite fearful and often afraid of the dark. that normally comes from ignorance

Click to expand...

the only ones who need not fear the IRS are the ones on the left. You would fear them if this was a republican administration and they went after you

Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

Fenton said:

Not on me. The guy was clearly trying to dance around the question.

You know this doesn't even speak to the IRS leaking donors list from Conservative organizations.

Illegally to the Democrat party and to left wing activist organizations.

I mean the IRS targeting Conservative groups is only the tip of the ice berg.

Click to expand...

watch again
the congressman asked only one question - for which he awaited an answer - during the entire five minutes of his diatribe

Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

justabubba said:

maybe because i tend to be objective in my assessments, there is no reason to
fear the IRS and/or its actions
but i realize your side tends to be quite fearful and often afraid of the dark. that normally comes from ignorance

Click to expand...

LOL !!

Please look up the definition of objective.

It doesn't mean coming to a conclusion based on cherry picked data to back your political agenda.

With a list of Conservative groups, no liberal or leftist or progressive groups were targeted, AND the revelation that the IRS leaked donor list to Democrats and to left wing activist groups your " objective " opinion is they committed no wrong doing ?

Lol.....

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

justabubba said:

maybe because i tend to be objective in my assessments, there is no reason to fear the IRS and/or its actions
but i realize your side tends to be quite fearful and often afraid of the dark. that normally comes from ignorance

Click to expand...

Ah yes, more reaching down into the muck when nothing of substance is available.

Let's see if I can get down to that level....

When your side learns how to earn a decent income, perhaps the IRS will be viewed as something other than an avenue to get free money through earned income credits.

Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

justabubba said:

there was NO targeting
there was a reasonable identification of applicants for tax exclusion whose application gave indication of political activity
which activity had to be examined to determine whether said political activity was primarily what the organization was engaged in
such as tea party organizations
or patriot organizations

Click to expand...

would you call having the word "Progressive" in a groups name as a sign of political affiliation? why wasn't that word on the targeting list? only words that was in that targeting list are conservative buzz words why wasn't there and liberal buzz words on that list? why didn't any conservative organization get approved in the last 27 months and liberal groups got approved in less then 9 months