• 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

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.
I didn't say "non-political" and don't at all claim that to be the case. However, the Tea Party is no more a political "entity" than "The Liberals."
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

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.

You might be able to get away with it because the IRS has been extremely flexible in approving these organizations, but I don't think that either defeating Obamacare or raising taxes on the wealthy would constitute valid 501(c)(4) groups, these should be 527's as their primary activity would be influencing public policy.

A 501(c)(4) group could be founded on something like Americans for a Better Health Care Future which opposes Obama Care, but spends the majority of its effort educating doctors and patients about each others needs. (or whatever).

But the real problem here is that Citizens' United allowed these groups to shield donors. Before that, they could still conduct the same amount of politicking, but they had to use special funds with publicly disclosed donors.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

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.
First you asked "isn't influencing elections the primary purpose of the Tea Party?"
And here you ask "So these organizations aren't trying to influence elections at all?"

How about we stake out the middle ground? First, organizations that follow a "Tea Party ideology" are allowed to influence elections so long as it's not their primary purpose. Second, it seems a bit crazy to assume that just because "Tea Party" is in the name, we should subject an organization to greater scrutiny than one that happens to use the word "Progressive."
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

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 ?

There is no evidence (yet) that conservative groups were targeted at a higher rate than groups with other political affiliations. The IRS processed 94 % of all applications correctly, 2% received too much scrutiny, 4% received too little.

In order to make that case you'd have to analyze the rate at which conservative groups were correctly and incorrectly targeted and compare that to the baseline. Remember, conservative groups made up the bulk of the increase in 501(c)(4) applications. Basic math says that they'd make up a large portion of those subjected to extra scrutiny.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

You might be able to get away with it because the IRS has been extremely flexible in approving these organizations, but I don't think that either defeating Obamacare or raising taxes on the wealthy would constitute valid 501(c)(4) groups, these should be 527's as their primary activity would be influencing public policy.
Well of course you wouldn't call yourself "Americans who Hate ObamaCare" and list a repeal as your mission statement. But these sorts of groups do exist and do meet the legal requirements as they're currently written.

For example "Tennesseans for Fair Taxation" has been around since 1996, with a mission "to create a more fair and progressive tax structure that ensures adequate revenues for the benefit of all Tennesseans" and provide social welfare by "educating hundreds of Tennesseans every year on the short and long-term consequences of a tax system built on the backs of the poor."

But the real problem here is that Citizens' United allowed these groups to shield donors. Before that, they could still conduct the same amount of politicking, but they had to use special funds with publicly disclosed donors.
These groups have always been able to "shield donors" - the disclosure requirements weren't changed by Citizens United. Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend money on elections.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

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.

It depends on the group. But there is no such thing as a proper noun Tea Party. There are no national leaders. There is no official platform. There is no membership.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

First you asked "isn't influencing elections the primary purpose of the Tea Party?"
And here you ask "So these organizations aren't trying to influence elections at all?"

How about we stake out the middle ground? First, organizations that follow a "Tea Party ideology" are allowed to influence elections so long as it's not their primary purpose. Second, it seems a bit crazy to assume that just because "Tea Party" is in the name, we should subject an organization to greater scrutiny than one that happens to use the word "Progressive."

I never said they should be subjected to more scrutiny. Look and see who started the thread in the first place.

But I do think that influencing elections is what TP groups are about. That's not bad necessarily, but it is what they do.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

I never said they should be subjected to more scrutiny.
No, I didn't mean to imply that - was referring to the IRS.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Well of course you wouldn't call yourself "Americans who Hate ObamaCare" and list a repeal as your mission statement. But these sorts of groups do exist and do meet the legal requirements as they're currently written.

For example "Tennesseans for Fair Taxation" has been around since 1996, with a mission "to create a more fair and progressive tax structure that ensures adequate revenues for the benefit of all Tennesseans" and provide social welfare by "educating hundreds of Tennesseans every year on the short and long-term consequences of a tax system built on the backs of the poor."


These groups have always been able to "shield donors" - the disclosure requirements weren't changed by Citizens United. Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend money on elections.

The groups have been able to shield donors who donate to their general funds. However, they couldn't use this money to engage in any political discourse. If they wanted to run adds, they had to either establish an attached PAC or else use funds from donors that was specifically earmarked for such action. These funds were subject to campaign finance law and as such, the organization had to disclose anyone donating to these funds.

This is a common misunderstanding of Citizens United. Businesses and corporations have always been allowed to engage in politics. They just weren't able to do it with general funds, instead they had to form PACs.

As to the IRS approving organizations that should not have been approved, this has only become a problem since Citizens United. If you wanted to form a 501(c)(4) for issue advocacy, so what? There was no benefit over a PAC so there was no real reason to apply too much scrutiny.

After Citizens United these 501(c)(4)s emerged for the sole purpose of laundering dark money into politics. For example, CrossRoads GPS spends more than 80% of their budget on adds, but only declares a small portion of them to be independent expenditures.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Meanwhile, an apology for these IRS transgressions isn't enough.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

"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.

Is that what this scandal proves, that the IRS stayed out of politics? BTW, Miller is the one resigning, not Shulman.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Meanwhile, an apology for these IRS transgressions isn't enough.

Nothing short of Obama's impeachment will be enough for most conservatives.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

This is a common misunderstanding of Citizens United. Businesses and corporations have always been allowed to engage in politics. They just weren't able to do it with general funds, instead they had to form PACs.
Allow me to clarify: Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend money directly on elections.

The groups have been able to shield donors who donate to their general funds. However, they couldn't use this money to engage in any political discourse.
The money could indeed be used to engage in political discourse, and it was completely legal to spend millions in an election year without disclosing your donors - that did not change with Citizens United.

Citizens United basically said that you can't prohibit or restrict corporations/unions from engaging in "independent communications" i.e. independently advocating for candidates in an election. It is because such expenditures were legal under a 501(c)(4) prior to C.U. that they couldn't take corporate donations. After Citizens United, the restriction was lifted. Thus, Citizens United didn't change how the 501(c)(4) worked, or who was shielded and who wasn't, it only allowed corporations and unions to make use of a 501(c)(4).
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Nothing short of Obama's impeachment will be enough for most conservatives.

I am already on record as hoping, for the sake of the nation, that this doesn't happen. We're all going to have to wait and see. Surely, if impeachment is justified, you will support this, yes?
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

I am already on record as hoping, for the sake of the nation, that this doesn't happen. We're all going to have to wait and see. Surely, if impeachment is justified, you will support this, yes?

If Obama did something illegal, he should be dealt with accordingly.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Meanwhile, an apology for these IRS transgressions isn't enough.

And now we have the POTUS rejecting calls for a special investigator. Pretty much duck and weave. Not the response one would expect from someone not concerned with the scandal reaching his office.

It's a way to doom the issue to he said/she said by guaranteeing it becomes a partisan football issue.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Nothing short of Obama's impeachment will be enough for most
conservatives.

Well he doesn't have the class or character to step down, so yea IF you can pin high crimes and misdemeanors on him he SHOULD be impeached.

Hell we didn't elect that corrupt fool, why should we subjected to the consequence of his dishonesty and incompetence ?

Nixon bowed out and the IRS never even targeted opposing groups. Obama's IRS DID !!

Hundreds of times. Oh but he gets a pass while you libs manafacture false narratives about Bush Jr ?

I dont think so.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Nixon bowed out and the IRS never even targeted opposing groups. Obama's IRS DID !!

I'm not sure Obama is to blame for the IRS attempting to address the drastic rise in political groups vying for government welfare post-2008.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Nothing short of Obama's impeachment will be enough for most conservatives.
I have seen much of that. I, for one, am opposed to such an action unless absolutely required - and I do mean absolutely. Otherwise, there just isn't sufficient justification for it on many, many levels, and some of those levels are purely partisan in nature, too.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Allow me to clarify: Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend money directly on elections.


The money could indeed be used to engage in political discourse, and it was completely legal to spend millions in an election year without disclosing your donors - that did not change with Citizens United.

Citizens United basically said that you can't prohibit or restrict corporations/unions from engaging in "independent communications" i.e. independently advocating for candidates in an election. It is because such expenditures were legal under a 501(c)(4) prior to C.U. that they couldn't take corporate donations. After Citizens United, the restriction was lifted. Thus, Citizens United didn't change how the 501(c)(4) worked, or who was shielded and who wasn't, it only allowed corporations and unions to make use of a 501(c)(4).

Actually it wasn't.

501(c)(4)'s could use general funds to engage in lobbying. They were subject to the Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) and had to report how much they spent and how they spent it, but they did not (and still don't) have to disclose the source of funds used. So that was one way they could influence politics. They were also allowed to spend general funds to paying for partisan material, as long as it was only sent to their membership, and in some cases they were allowed to engage in ballot measure advocacy in certain states under certain situations.

But in order to engage in electioneering, 501(c)(4)'s had to set up a Federal Separate Segregated Fund (SSF) also known as a connected PAC. The 501(c)(4) could pay administrative costs of SSF through general funds, but the SSF was subject to the Federal Election Campaign Act. As such they had to report donors SSF donors to FEC using Form 3X.

However, Citizens United removed the restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. This included 501(c)(4)'s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
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.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Is that what this scandal proves, that the IRS stayed out of politics? BTW, Miller is the one resigning, not Shulman.

It proves that it's important *TO KEEP* the IRS out of politics.

And yeah. Miller is resigning because someone had to resign. Shulman was the head of the IRS when all of the problems occurred.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

I'm not sure Obama is to blame for the
IRS attempting to address the drastic rise in political groups vying for government welfare post-2008.

Lol...He is the DIRECT reason for a rise in Conservative PACs.

Hell, those people, applying for tax exempt status were trying to do you and everyone else a huge favor.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Well he doesn't have the class or character to step down, so yea IF you can pin high crimes and misdemeanors on him he SHOULD be impeached.

Hell we didn't elect that corrupt fool, why should we subjected to the consequence of his dishonesty and incompetence ?

Nixon bowed out and the IRS never even targeted opposing groups. Obama's IRS DID !!

Hundreds of times. Oh but he gets a pass while you libs manafacture false narratives about Bush Jr ?

I dont think so.


Seriously, what is it with some of you conservatives? Anytime you lose an election it's IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH. Yeah there are crazies on the left, but not nearly as many or as bad.

I was a conservative during the Clinton years, and I followed all of the supposed scandals. Then Bush took office and many of the same things happened. Conservatives were silent. Then worse things happened.... Still silence. Obama takes office and its IMPEACH IMPAEACH IMPEACH.

It's just not credible. Like him, hate him, whatever, objectively he's run the cleanest administration in a generation. Most effective, ehhhh. But certainly the cleanest, most scandal free. And yes, that's objective.

The Obama administration has been held under a microscope like no other. You think tea party groups had to provide “too much” information to the IRS. What about Fast and Furious? What about Benghazi? What about every other supposed scandal that starts out by with the House Republicans clambering about impeachable offenses because they suspect that something may exist in some document that they don't yet have even though they have no evidence to suggest that any such thing exists.

This is like saying, if Fenton murdered someone we'll be sure to send him straight to jail. How could he possibly think that he could get away with murder. I know he hasn't turned himself in, but if we can pin this charge on him, then we'll be sure to take him to trial. Granted, we have no evidence that Fenton did anything, but we also don't have all of the information yet.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Seriously, what is it with some of you conservatives? Anytime you lose an election it's IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH. Yeah there are crazies on the left, but not nearly as many or as bad.

I was a conservative during the Clinton years, and I followed all of the supposed scandals. Then Bush took office and many of the same things happened. Conservatives were silent. Then worse things happened.... Still silence. Obama takes office and its IMPEACH IMPAEACH IMPEACH.

It's just not credible. Like him, hate him, whatever, objectively he's run the cleanest administration in a generation. Most effective, ehhhh. But certainly the cleanest, most scandal free. And yes, that's objective.

The Obama administration has been held under a microscope like no other. You think tea party groups had to provide “too much” information to the IRS. What about Fast and Furious? What about Benghazi? What about every other supposed scandal that starts out by with the House Republicans clambering about impeachable offenses because they suspect that something may exist in some document that they don't yet have even though they have no evidence to suggest that any such thing exists.

This is like saying, if Fenton murdered someone we'll be sure to send him straight to jail. How could he possibly think that he could get away with murder. I know he hasn't turned himself in, but if we can pin this charge on him, then we'll be sure to take him to trial. Granted, we have no evidence that Fenton did anything, but we also don't have all of the information yet.

Just the facts, please. Standard talking points are a waste of bits.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Seriously, what is it with some of you conservatives? Anytime you lose an election it's IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH. Yeah there are crazies on the left, but not nearly as many or as bad.

I was a conservative during the Clinton years, and I followed all of the supposed scandals. Then Bush took office and many of the same things happened. Conservatives were silent. Then worse things happened.... Still silence. Obama takes office and its IMPEACH IMPAEACH IMPEACH.

It's just not credible. Like him, hate him, whatever, objectively he's run the cleanest administration in a generation. Most effective, ehhhh. But certainly the cleanest, most scandal free. And yes, that's objective.

The Obama administration has been held under a microscope like no other. You think tea party groups had to provide “too much” information to the IRS. What about Fast and Furious? What about Benghazi? What about every other supposed scandal that starts out by with the House Republicans clambering about impeachable offenses because they suspect that something may exist in some document that they don't yet have even though they have no evidence to suggest that any such thing exists.

This is like saying, if Fenton murdered someone we'll be sure to send him straight to jail. How could he possibly think that he could get away with murder. I know he hasn't turned himself in, but if we can pin this charge on him, then we'll be sure to take him to trial. Granted, we have no evidence that Fenton did anything, but we also don't have all of the information yet.

Just the facts, please. Standard talking points are a waste of bits.

Exactly what do you say that is not standard talking points? Mithros is dead on. Up until the end of GWB's first trime I was pretty durn conservative myself. Actually GWB just finished off my Republicanness. It is not just the RW platform sliding further right all the time it is the craziness, silliness and double standards that just make it impossible for any thinking person to deal with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom