• 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 higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show[W:249]

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Taylor said:
That seems to support what I said earlier. They are not asking that she be suspended for the manner in which the 501(c)(4) statute was being enforced. They asked that she be suspended because Lerner failed to disclose that the IRS was inappropriately targeting conservative groups when it came up in the course of asking about the processing of 501(c)(4) applications.
Click to expand...

Then we were talking past each other. I thought you were saying that she was suspended because she was involved in "targeting" tea party groups. Instead she was suspended for failing to disclose this mess during a Senate investigation about why the IRS failed to properly enforce 501c4 status.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Mithros said:
Then we were talking past each other. I thought you were saying that she was suspended because she was involved in "targeting" tea party groups. Instead she was suspended for failing to disclose this mess during a Senate investigation about why the IRS failed to properly enforce 501c4 status.
Click to expand...
Yes, we know that she's known about for some time, but don't as of yet know the extent of her role.

(But based on her refusal to testify, perhaps we can assume that she believes she can be charged with criminal wrongdoing).
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Mithros said:
You mean this?

To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements)….​
It's a pretty sad state of things if you think that furthering the common good and general welfare of the community is an inherently liberal endeavour.
Click to expand...
No, this:
Seeking legislation germane to the organization's programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes. Thus, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status.
Click to expand...

It’s funny you failed to post the two next sentences. If one stipulates the ‘TEA’ stands for taxed enough already then wouldn’t their objective be ‘Seeking legislation germane to the organization's programs’ when it comes to tax policy? Further the sunset of the ‘Bush tax cuts’ was eminent in 2009-10 wouldn’t it stand to reason there would be a surge in organizations who planned tax lobbying? Given this wouldn’t they be legitimate 501(c)(4)’s based on the passage above?
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Taylor said:
Lois Lerner is in hot water because the IRS inappropriately targeted conservative groups, not because she allowed conservative groups to operate despite clear evidence of abuse.
Click to expand...

I doubt she is in any hot water whatsoever. She is a loyal soldier and, like Susan Rice, will retain power in some capacity with the higher circles of the Democratic Party.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Dems and Libs would never leak private information obtained via government for political purposes....except when they do.


EPA acknowledges releasing personal details on farmers, senator slams agency

Read more: EPA acknowledges releasing personal details on farmers, senator slams agency | Fox News

The Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged Tuesday that it released personal information on potentially thousands of farmers and ranchers to environmental groups, following concerns from congressional Republicans and agriculture groups that the release could endanger their safety.

According to a document obtained by FoxNews.com, the EPA said “some of the personal information that could have been protected … was released." Though the EPA has already sent out the documents, the agency now says it has since redacted sensitive details and asked the environmental groups to “return the information.”

But Sen. John Thune, who originally complained about the release, slammed the EPA for trying to retroactively recover the sensitive data.

"It is inexcusable for the EPA to release the personal information of American families and then call for it back, knowing full well that the erroneously released information will never be fully returned," he said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "While EPA acknowledging that it erred is a first step, more must be done to protect the personal information of our farmers and ranchers now and in the future. I will continue to demand answers from the EPA on how this information was collected and why it is still being distributed to extreme environmental groups to the detriment of our farm and ranch families."
Click to expand...
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Dickieboy said:
No, this:


It’s funny you failed to post the two next sentences. If one stipulates the ‘TEA’ stands for taxed enough already then wouldn’t their objective be ‘Seeking legislation germane to the organization's programs’ when it comes to tax policy? Further the sunset of the ‘Bush tax cuts’ was eminent in 2009-10 wouldn’t it stand to reason there would be a surge in organizations who planned tax lobbying? Given this wouldn’t they be legitimate 501(c)(4)’s based on the passage above?
Click to expand...

Yes, you can somehow do social welfare through legislative efforts. If you have a group that would qualify as a 501c3 EXCEPT for activity such as lobbying, you can file as a 501c4. But you still need to have a goal that's definable as social welfare. Actually in this case it argues for a stricter definition of social welfare.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Mithros said:
Yes, you can somehow do social welfare through legislative efforts. If you have a group that would qualify as a 501c3 EXCEPT for activity such as lobbying, you can file as a 501c4. But you still need to have a goal that's definable as social welfare. Actually in this case it argues for a stricter definition of social welfare.
Click to expand...

MoveOn.org is a 501(c)(4). That's an easy standard to meet.:mrgreen:
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Jack Hays said:
MoveOn.org is a 501(c)(4). That's an easy standard to meet.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The 501c4 is used to lobby, the PAC is used for electioneering.
MoveOn.org Civic Action is a 501(c)(4) organization.
MoveOn.org Political Action is a federal political committee​

All of these liberal groups divide their organizations. The Tea Party is more than welcome to do this. The lobbying part is complete BS, but it's specifically allowed under IRS guidlines because lobbyists write legislation.

All the more reason to keep dark money out of politics.

PS, since I consider MoveOn to be an abuse of the tax code, why would you think it should justify worse behaviour from conservative groups.
 
Last edited:
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Mithros said:
The 501c4 is used to lobby, the PAC is used for electioneering.
MoveOn.org Civic Action is a 501(c)(4) organization.
MoveOn.org Political Action is a federal political committee​

All of these liberal groups divide their organizations. The Tea Party is more than welcome to do this. The lobbying part is complete BS, but it's specifically allowed under IRS guidlines because lobbyists write legislation.

All the more reason to keep dark money out of politics.

PS, since I consider MoveOn to be an abuse of the tax code, why would you think it should justify worse behaviour from conservative groups.
Click to expand...

I personally think they are all justified. I'd like to see no rules at all.:cool:
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Mithros said:
The 501c4 is used to lobby, the PAC is used for electioneering.
MoveOn.org Civic Action is a 501(c)(4) organization.
MoveOn.org Political Action is a federal political committee​

All of these liberal groups divide their organizations. The Tea Party is more than welcome to do this. The lobbying part is complete BS, but it's specifically allowed under IRS guidlines because lobbyists write legislation.

All the more reason to keep dark money out of politics.

PS, since I consider MoveOn to be an abuse of the tax code, why would you think it should justify worse behaviour from conservative groups.
Click to expand...

What part about equal application of the law eludes you?

Ill say it again, I would rather some people get tax status they do not deserve than government descriminate on the basis of political affiliation.

Corruption is better than using government as a tool to chill political speech and political action, whether intentional or accidental, it doesnt matter---it should not occur.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

The use of government to punish political enemies is a hallmark of the banana republic.

Welcome to Chicago, Politics, folks. For my part, I promise to be at least honestly ticked when the next Republican administration does the same to left wing groups, which is better than many of you have done here.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

cpwill said:
The use of government to punish political enemies is a hallmark of the banana republic.

Welcome to Chicago, Politics, folks. For my part, I promise to be at least honestly ticked when the next Republican administration does the same to left wing groups, which is better than many of you have done here.
Click to expand...
Do you have any proof the Obama Administration did this to the Republicans?
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

pbrauer said:
Do you have any proof the Obama Administration did this to the Republicans?
Click to expand...

The IRS ADMITTED IT. wtf Pete.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Mithros said:
The 501c4 is used to lobby, the PAC is used for electioneering.
MoveOn.org Civic Action is a 501(c)(4) organization.
MoveOn.org Political Action is a federal political committee​

All of these liberal groups divide their organizations. The Tea Party is more than welcome to do this. The lobbying part is complete BS, but it's specifically allowed under IRS guidlines because lobbyists write legislation.

All the more reason to keep dark money out of politics.

PS, since I consider MoveOn to be an abuse of the tax code, why would you think it should justify worse behaviour from conservative groups.
Click to expand...


What behavior do you define as "worse behavior"?

Can you link to an example of a documented abuse that your are hoping to prevent in the future that was committed by a Conservative group approved as a 501 c 4 after the Citizens United Decision was rendered?
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Jack Hays said:
I personally think they are all justified. I'd like to see no rules at all.:cool:
Click to expand...



No rules in an area regulated by the IRS?

No rules means no control and no control means no IRS.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

code1211 said:
No rules in an area regulated by the IRS?

No rules means no control and no control means no IRS.
Click to expand...

I mean no rules for political or charitable giving.:cool:
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

code1211 said:
No rules in an area regulated by the IRS?

No rules means no control and no control means no IRS.
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
I mean no rules for political or charitable giving.:cool:
Click to expand...
So, is it okay for foreign company / country to influence our elections with advertising money?
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

pbrauer said:
So, is it okay for foreign company / country to influence our elections with advertising money?
Click to expand...

I simply want to erase the distinction between (3) and (4).:cool:
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Jack Hays said:
I simply want to erase the distinction between (3) and (4).:cool:
Click to expand...
That doesn't answer my question. I think the lure to 501c4 in the ability to keep donors secret.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Jack Hays said:
I mean no rules for political or charitable giving.:cool:
Click to expand...

What kind of a country is it if you can't buy politicians?
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

pbrauer said:
So, is it okay for foreign company / country to influence our elections with advertising money?
Click to expand...


Clinton thought so.

The simple truth is that we have a great influence on any country with which we deal whether it is in a friendly or an unfriendly way.

If a company like Shell makes a donation to a political candidate or party, that is a defacto foreign contribution, but that company has a vested interest in how the government acts in relation to how Shell is allowed to do business.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

code1211 said:
Clinton thought so.

The simple truth is that we have a great influence on any country with which we deal whether it is in a friendly or an unfriendly way.

If a company like Shell makes a donation to a political candidate or party, that is a defacto foreign contribution, but that company has a vested interest in how the government acts in relation to how Shell is allowed to do business.
Click to expand...
Since when have companies been able to directly contribute money to candidates or political parties?
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

pbrauer said:
That doesn't answer my question. I think the lure to 501c4 in the ability to keep donors secret.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with secret donors so long as the campaign certifies, on pain of perjury, that they are Americans. We have a secret ballot after all.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom