Page 49 of 74 FirstFirst ... 39474849505159 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 732

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

  1. #481
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    12-08-13 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,114

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

    Best smack down ever

    Last edited by trfjr; 05-17-13 at 03:03 PM.

  2. #482
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    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.
    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.

    The Citizens United decision did not disturb prohibitions on corporate contributions to candidates, and it did not address whether the government could regulate contributions to groups that make independent expenditures.[22] The Citizens United ruling did however remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. These groups were freed to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.

    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.

    This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[23] or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[24] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[25]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[26] nor did it concern campaign contribution limits.

  3. #483
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    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)
    Too much splits. moving on

  4. #484
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

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

    Moderator's Warning:
    IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups[W:484,732] Remember to keep things civil.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  5. #485
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,153

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

    Quote Originally Posted by trfjr View Post
    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
    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
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  6. #486
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by trfjr View Post
    All you need to ask is MOTIVE who benefited
    IOW, bush* planned 9/11 and republicans ordered the attack on Benghazi
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  7. #487
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

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

    Quote Originally Posted by trfjr View Post
    Best smack down ever

    Thanks for the post.

    Every taxpayer should view it.

  8. #488
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,153

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

    Quote Originally Posted by trfjr View Post
    Best smack down ever

    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
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  9. #489
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

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

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    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

    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.

  10. #490
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,318

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

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    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
    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 ?

Page 49 of 74 FirstFirst ... 39474849505159 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •