• 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 official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

But this isn't a misconception or an illusion; the IRS appears to have been targeting certain groups for political purposes.
The IRS was investigating groups for engaging in excess political activity, so it would be kind of bad if they didn't investigate groups for political purposes. The problem is that one set of criteria used singles out certain conservative groups. This is politicly insensitive, but the words "Tea", "Party", "Patriots", and "912" are the most likely words to indicate excess political activity.

The search criteria should be balanced. However, it's not a balanced problem. 85-90% of non-disclosed political was by conservative groups. If the groups being investigating are not 85-90% conservative, then the investigation is biased.
 
the words "Tea", "Party", "Patriots", and "912" are the most likely words to indicate excess political activity

that's only half of it

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

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.

why would anyone want to STOP the investigation?

what are they trying to hide?
 
Oh, there's no question that the IRS needs to step up enforcement, particularly among 501c groups. The problem is that many in congress were elected because of outside spending by these groups. These politicians have no incentive to enforce the law. Notice how the politicians pivoted from the real issue (the criteria used to determine who should be investigated) to outrage that groups were investigated.

The outrage was indeed partly because of biased criteria, but also because of lying to Congress, as late as two days before the planted question episode.:cool:
 
that's only half of it

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



why would anyone want to STOP the investigation?

what are they trying to hide?

What about PatriotMajority? They used to be an above board political group that disclosed their donors. But after 2010 they stopped acting as a PAC and began funnelling their money through a 501c4 donor shield. They spent $7,013,886 in 2012. That's enough for me....

Oh, they're also the second highest spending Liberal 501(c)(4) group.
 
The outrage was indeed partly because of biased criteria, but also because of lying to Congress, as late as two days before the planted question episode.:cool:

That's an entirely different issue. The Senate finance committee was investigating how 501(c)(4) groups abuse the tax code to launder money into politics. Lois Lerner went in front of Levin and McCain, and somehow failed to mention any of this.
 
And both sides do it, but not to the same extent. Conservatives accounted for 90% of non-disclosed donor spending in 2010, and 85% in 2012. In contrast Liberals accounted for 8% and 11% respectively.
2012 Outside Spending, by Group | OpenSecrets

Your point is correct that both sides do it but justifying one over the other based on volume of money seems prejudiced. Based on the list you posted there are ~138 included and ~57 of these are labeled 'liberal'. Considering this represents 41% of the GROUPS engaged in these activities why would you single out one significantly more than the other? Or is you argument that since they collect more they should be more heavily scrutinized? Further IF the ratio of those groups 'targeted' had been closer to 60/40 do you think this 'scandal' would be as notorious?
 
That's enough for me

who cares

it's not enough for holder (or lynch or mccaskill or baucus or levin or neal or cummings...)

unlike you (and me), they matter

thursday: Conservative group lawsuit targets IRS employees personally | The Daily Caller

True the Vote is not only suing the IRS, but also taking action against the IRS employees who participated in the harassment of the voter education and election monitoring organization. Those employees could personally be held liable to pay damages that would be established in litigation.

True the Votes’ lead counsel, Cleta Mitchell, explained in an email to The Daily Caller that she does not know whether the employees, if found to be liable in the lawsuit True the Vote filed against the IRS and its employees Tuesday, would pay out of pocket or take other avenues such as accessing union funds or homeowners insurance. Either way, she noted, the group will pursue its action.

“[T]heir unlawful actions caused my clients to have to come up with the money to deal with their demands…out of their own personal finances… They didn’t seem to worry / care about that,” Mitchell wrote to TheDC. “Government employees never do care about the costs to private citizens of their burdensome demands….”

Founder and president of True the Vote Catherine Engelbrecht explained in a conference call Thursday morning that in July of 2010 her organization filed an application for tax exemption. The request has been in limbo since then.

“During that time we have been subjected to multiple rounds of questions, all told I would say in excess of several hundred questions and thousands of documents provided back to the IRS,” she said. “With no real end in sight.”

After her organization’s most recent round of questions following the November 2012 elections, Engelbrecht said that she and Mitchell began discussing other legal options.

“That ultimately led us to a place where we felt like we had no other options but to file suit against the IRS and to ask the courts to now get involved to grant our long-awaited tax exempt status,” she said adding she also hoped to reveal the IRS employees’ involvement in her organization’s plight.

True the Vote filed a lawsuit against the IRS and some of its employees on Tuesday.

Mitchell explained that she and Engelbrecht had been discussing suing the IRS to obtain tax-exempt status even before the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration released his report on the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.

“An applicant for 501(c)(3) status is allowed under federal law to go to court if the IRS has not issued a letter of determination within 270 days, so we were well past that deadline,” she said.

Mitchell said that they have also added charges to the complaint seeking to address the potential violation of a federal statute that prohibits IRS employees from unauthorized inspection or dissemination of confidential taxpayer information.

“It is our claim, in the suit, that by virtue of the IRS’ demand and receipt of confidential information from True the Vote, which was not necessary for purposes of ascertaining whether or not the organization qualifies for exempt status, that that constitutes an unlawful inspection of True the Votes’ proprietary information as a taxpayer,” Mitchell said, adding that they are seeking $1,000 per unlawful inspection, but do not yet know how many unlawful inspections the IRS made.

The third charge True the Vote is pursuing against the IRS is a claim for a redress of True the Vote’s constitutional right to free speech and association under the First Amendment.

“That violation of our Constitutional rights does constitute a civil rights claim, we are arguing, and we have sued these IRS agents and employees not only in their official capacities but in their individual and personal capacities for engaging in this conspiracy to violate True the Vote’s rights,” she said.

Mitchell explained that through this lawsuit they hope to get real answers.

“We hope to get through discovery the answers to the questions of what they were doing, why they were doing it, who was doing it, and by naming these individual agents assigned to True the Vote’s case or application, we’ll find out who told them what it was that they were supposed to be doing,” she added.

“Once the IRS denies an application then you have the remedy to take that denial to federal court and have it reviewed by the court and either affirmed or overturned. But just holding all these 501(c)(4) organizations’ applications in limbo, it denied the groups the opportunity to go to court and have the court sort it out. So all the 501(c)(4) organizations, and there were hundreds of them, are still sitting out there. Those applications have not been granted for most of the organizations who applied since this unlawful process was put in place by the IRS, so this is not in the past tense,” she said.

Anyone whose name True the Vote knew, who had potentially touched the group’s application is named in the suit, Mitchell said. She added that as they learn of more individuals who were involved, True the Vote and its lawyers will add those people to the suit as well.

Engelbrecht has explained that since filing the group’s application, her family and family business have been audited by the IRS twice, subject to two unscheduled audits by ATF, one by OSHA, and the Texas-branch of the EPA.

“All of that has happened in a very short amount of time and in my opinion it really begs the question, what is so different now that was not different before we filed that application?”
 
LOL!

is eric holder paranoid?

or manipulated?

No, people that get their news from CNS, the Daily Caller or WND (or Daily KOS, to be fair and balanced) would fall into that class....
 
Lois Lerner went in front of Levin and McCain, and somehow failed to mention any of this

she sure did

LOL!

so did miller and shulman

except she never testified before mccain---you don't know what you're talking about

why would anyone want to STOP this search for the truth?

it won't help you, 74% of americans want answers

seeya in committee, bring your lawyer
 
"I did nothing wrong, and I plead the 5th so don't ask me any questions!"

Seems immature.
 
Your point is correct that both sides do it but justifying one over the other based on volume of money seems prejudiced. Based on the list you posted there are ~138 included and ~57 of these are labeled 'liberal'. Considering this represents 41% of the GROUPS engaged in these activities why would you single out one significantly more than the other? Or is you argument that since they collect more they should be more heavily scrutinized? Further IF the ratio of those groups 'targeted' had been closer to 60/40 do you think this 'scandal' would be as notorious?

1). Liberal groups camouflaged their names so it's hard to identify them based on name. Shape-Shifting by Liberal Dark Money Groups Seems Meant to Confuse - OpenSecrets Blog
2). Conservative groups that were approved outspent liberal groups 34:1. Conservative Groups Granted Exemption Vastly Outspent Liberal Ones - OpenSecrets Blog
3). The amount of liberal spending by 501c groups has been fairly constant, the increase is almost entirely among conservatives.
4). We don't know how many liberal groups were investigated, but I'd expect unbiased investigations to yield something like 200 conservative groups compared to 50 Liberal.

nonprofit spending growth by viewpt.JPG
 
1). Liberal groups camouflaged their names so it's hard to identify them based on name. Shape-Shifting by Liberal Dark Money Groups Seems Meant to Confuse - OpenSecrets Blog
2). Conservative groups that were approved outspent liberal groups 34:1. Conservative Groups Granted Exemption Vastly Outspent Liberal Ones - OpenSecrets Blog
3). The amount of liberal spending by 501c groups has been fairly constant, the increase is almost entirely among conservatives.
4). We don't know how many liberal groups were investigated, but I'd expect unbiased investigations to yield something like 200 conservative groups compared to 50 Liberal.

? so you retain the premise that 'targeting' should be based on money VOLUME and not number of organizations?

Doesn't it seem plausible that the volume spent will be greater by the current 'minority party' as they have more 'motivation'?

And no, we don't know 'how many liberal groups were investigated' but I can only presume that if the numbers were more judicious it would be argued currently (and legitimately) as it would certainly deflect the 'targeting' assertion.
 
Liberal groups camouflaged their names

nonsense, the irs didn't even try

groups "with names including words like progress or progressive" were "given a pass"

usatoday above

the increase is almost entirely among conservatives

you're defending an agency that has already, a dozen days to sunday, admitted its wrongdoing

AP: IRS apologizes for inappropriate targeting of conservatives

at this point it's a question of character

cuz if the irs has more integrity than you...
 
? so you retain the premise that 'targeting' should be based on money VOLUME and not number of organizations?

Doesn't it seem plausible that the volume spent will be greater by the current 'minority party' as they have more 'motivation'?

And no, we don't know 'how many liberal groups were investigated' but I can only presume that if the numbers were more judicious it would be argued currently (and legitimately) as it would certainly deflect the 'targeting' assertion.
I'd argue that we're talking about 501(c)(4)'s incorrectly being used to funnel dark money into politics. For whatever reason, there has been a huge increase in spending by conservative groups over their historical norm, while liberal groups have remained mainly constant. Given that, I'd expect more conservative groups to be investigated.

The problem has been with the coverage. The targeting has only referred to using keywords that are seemingly conservative (it appears that liberal groups have been using conservative sounding names). However, that's just one of many criteria. But it's much simpler to turn it into a political football.
 
I'd expect more conservative groups to be investigated

absolutely

that's why the irs apologized

LOL!
 
nonsense, the irs didn't even try

groups "with names including words like progress or progressive" were "given a pass"

usatoday above



you're defending an agency that has already, a dozen days to sunday, admitted its wrongdoing

AP: IRS apologizes for inappropriate targeting of conservatives

at this point it's a question of character

cuz if the irs has more integrity than you...
It is possible to disagree with someone without having to attack their character. just FYI

I have not ever defended the manner in which the IRS generated the keywords in the BOLO. However, saying they used inappropriate criteria to determine which groups to investigate does not mean that groups were improperly investigated. These groups and many others deserved to be investigated.
 
does not mean that groups were improperly investigated

not according to the irs

AP: IRS apologizes for targeting conservatives

not according to the president

USAToday: Obama calls IRS targeting of certain groups 'outrageous'

not according to the doj

it's a question of character

these groups and many others deserved to be investigated

they were

new target of investigation: DOJ opens criminal probe into IRS - The Hill

because you know where stonewalling leads

Congressman Lynch: If IRS Continues to Dodge Questions, There Will Be Special Prosecutor | Fox Nation

everyone's watching
 
Last edited:
It is possible to disagree with someone without having to attack their
character. just FYI

I have not ever defended the manner in which the IRS generated the keywords in the BOLO. However, saying they used inappropriate criteria to determine which groups to investigate does not mean that groups were improperly investigated. These groups and many others deserved to be investigated.

Well then you folks should have nothing to worry about.

It's all so innocent, a huge misunderstanding and you guys should applaud the apointment of a special prosecutor because there is nothing to hide what so ever.

We've heard your mitigations and your justifications.

Now why don't we just wait for the people who DO KNOW whats going on to testify under oath.
 
That's an entirely different issue. The Senate finance committee was investigating how 501(c)(4) groups abuse the tax code to launder money into politics. Lois Lerner went in front of Levin and McCain, and somehow failed to mention any of this.

Also failed to answer in the House, I believe.:cool:
 
or c. certain groups are trying to make an issue out of the most benign things and organizing facts to meet their arguments (see also, Salem Witch Trials)

So you think that targeting groups for IRS scrutiny based on ideological leanings is an appropriate way to conduct the government, and that agencies like the IRS are above congressional oversight?

Again, the issue is about determination letters. Now, drawing on my background as a CPA (earlier in my career), you can self declare and never have to ask the IRS anything, but you are responsible for carrying on your affairs in a matter consistent with the qualification. Alternatively, as with any questionable tax position, tax payers seek a IRS Determination Letter. They present the facts to the IRS and ask for their judgment. They want the Determination Letter to take to their donors; they need the Determination Letter because their application is not a slam dunk; they wait for their Determination Letter because getting one from the IRS is a difficult, labor intensive process.

The problem with groups with a substantial political focus is they are questionable for 501(c)(4) status. In fact, by the letter of the law, they do not qualify because they have to be exclusively social welfare, with no political component. Fortunately, for these groups, when the regs were written, they relaxed "exclusively" substituting the "primarily" standard, which opened the door for political activity.

Wait a minute....That isn't what your own article provided said....It said...

"501(c)4

May engage in political activities, as long as these activities do not become their primary purpose

CAN Endorse Candidates..."

So, you even seem to be mistaken here...

If these groups stuck to the social welfare aspect of their jobs and stayed out of the political side, the IRS determination would not be necessary and their would be no controversy. The fact that these are controversial groups (from a 501(c)(4) qualification status) made this controversial.

Wrong. As I showed above they are allowed to engage in political activity as long as that is not their primary purpose. What made this controversial is that Obama supporter within the IRS made it their mission during a campaign season to hinder these groups rights, hoping to effect the outcome of an election. That sir is criminal.

The political groups liked the 501(c)(4) status because they do not have to disclose donors. The perceived uneven application to conservative groups is largely de facto: 1) The vast majority of political groups formed in the 2009-2011 time frame were Tea Party groups....

Prove it...The IG report was inconclusive in that aspect.

and their focus was hardly a-political.

Doesn't have to be, re read your own posted article.

It was clear they were 'tweeners"

Not familiar with what you mean by "tweeners"....

if they qualified, they would barely qualify...

What does the content of any particular groups prayers have to do with qualifying?

2) many liberal groups are actually social welfare groups first with a political component second... they are advocating for a cause, not a party. Groups like Green Peace or the Sierra Club (which were already formed... so this does apply to them), are more typical of progressive groups... they clearly advocate a social position ahead of a political position (which firmly qualifies them as a 501(c)(4)). It is easier to qualify a social group, then a political one.

How many conservatives have the Sierra Club, or Green Peace donated to, or advocated for? If you truly believe this, it is either naive, or willingly dishonest. In either case, it was pointed out that liberal groups in the same time frame applying were rushed through, and in one case we know of retro active status was granted in less than a month.....So, yeah, this comparison is blown out of the water at this point.

Just wondering though, would you be so dismissive if hypothetically, Romney had won, and it was revealed that the IRS was doing this sort of thing during the campaign to progressive groups?

Religious groups would generally apply as a 501(c)(3) organization so that donor contributions were tax deductible. They could only have this status if they had NO political component. If they engaged at all in politics, or advocated political positions from the pulpit, they could get "kicked-down" to 501(c)(4) status. Religious groups have a bad habit of wanting to engage in politics and wanting to tell their constituencies how they should vote in the name of God... (their on sinners using the Lord's name to their political vein on both sides of the aisle... but the evangelicals, at least during the Bush years, often crossed the line)

Evangelicals in your eyes are the most egregious at violating that status? Maybe you have missed Rainbow PUSH, or Reverend Al, or even this guy....



Obviously, I would change out one word in that statement to make it true.

Of course you would...Because the splinter you point out in my eye, ignores the log in your own.

BTW... when you are the attorney for the highest ranking official in the controversy (Lois Lerner) and have political leaders saying irresponsible things like '..someone needs to jail, it would be mal-practice for her attorney to let her testify. This whole issue is already out of control (see also, Salem witch trials) .... she can always testify letter, but can never take her words back.

I am no attorney, but I think Trey Gowdy was correct ....

 
Very well stated, although you can't get downgraded from 501(c)(3) to 501(c)(4). If you're denied 501(c)(3) based on excess political interaction then you're barred from seeking 501(c)(4). But your post is spot on.

And both sides do it, but not to the same extent. Conservatives accounted for 90% of non-disclosed donor spending in 2010, and 85% in 2012. In contrast Liberals accounted for 8% and 11% respectively.
2012 Outside Spending, by Group | OpenSecrets

Thank you. I did step out of my knowledge base with that one. Usually, if challenged by the IRS to characterize yourself as something and they do not agree, they may characterized you as something less favorable (what you should have been characterized as in the first place) and you are free to accept or challenge in tax court.
 
It is possible to disagree with someone without having to attack their character. just FYI

I have not ever defended the manner in which the IRS generated the keywords in the BOLO. However, saying they used inappropriate criteria to determine which groups to investigate does not mean that groups were improperly investigated. These groups and many others deserved to be investigated.


Maybe they deserved it and maybe they didn't, but you're not the avenging tax angel so you don't get to decide.:mrgreen:
 
It is possible to disagree with someone without having to attack their character. just FYI

I have not ever defended the manner in which the IRS generated the keywords in the BOLO. However, saying they used inappropriate criteria to determine which groups to investigate does not mean that groups were improperly investigated. These groups and many others deserved to be investigated.

They were improperly targetted and from what I can tell, they were just harrassed and never investigated.
 
Wait a minute....That isn't what your own article provided said....It said...

"501(c)4

May engage in political activities, as long as these activities do not become their primary purpose

CAN Endorse Candidates..."

The IRS apologists don't even know what a 501 (c) (4) is.
 
Back
Top Bottom