• 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!

Lois Lerner’s price for testimony: Immunity

I'm not saying it wasn't breaking the law. I'm just saying that the committee, which is a political body, cares more about politics than truth.

Correction: rocket88 cares more about politics than truth
 
:lol: :doh What about those with "union" in the name? :roll: What social welfare mission does Media Matters involve itself in? They clearly state their mission as having an anti-conservative bias.

None of the groups you mentioned are 501(c)(4) "public welfare" organizations.
 
I have cronies? Awesome.

Pointing out that the committee is a political exercise done by politicians for political reasons is not excusing anybody or anything.

And specifically targeting Americans for their political beliefs isn't political? :lol:

You're acting like the two are not connected. That if this investigation damages Obama politically (especially if it's shown he or his campaign/administration coordinated it) that it's somehow not credible or justified. It's not the Republicans fault that the IRS under Obama is acting the like the Gestapo and specifically targeting Americans for their beliefs.

Who else is going to investigate this? Who else has the power? You think the Democrats are going to investigate their own fascism and corruption? :lol:
 
And you do not? Your defense of the IRS "targetting" seems entirely based upon politics. If a labor union spends 90% (or more) of its funds supporting liberal candiates/causes is that not politics as well?

Political Spending by Unions Far Exceeds Direct Donations - WSJ.com

There's a specific tax exempt status for labor unions...just like there are for political groups.

501(c)(4) is only about one thing...you have tax exempt status AND you don't need to disclose your donors.
 
And specifically targeting Americans for their political beliefs isn't political? :lol:

You're acting like the two are not connected. That if this investigation damages Obama politically (especially if it's shown he or his campaign/administration coordinated it) that it's somehow not credible or justified. It's not the Republicans fault that the IRS under Obama is acting the like the Gestapo and specifically targeting Americans for their beliefs.

Who else is going to investigate this? Who else has the power? You think the Democrats are going to investigate their own fascism and corruption? :lol:

Pretty good example of why Fox News rots your brain.
 
Pretty good example of why Fox News rots your brain.

A very liberal Obama sycophant tossing out the Fox News card

I've never seen this before on these forums. JK
 
A very liberal Obama sycophant tossing out the Fox News card

I've never seen this before on these forums. JK

It's pretty obvious you digest information from Fox News. You're still throwing out the possibility of an "Obama connection" when there has been no indication whatsoever of one. Not to mention new information coming out is pointing to the possibility that it wasn't just conservative groups "targeted" it was a host of groups from across the ideological spectrum that were political in nature.
 
None of the groups you mentioned are 501(c)(4) "public welfare" organizations.
Media Matters is actually a 501c3. To me, this is an even bigger abomination than if they were a c4. Basically any of these groups, whether on the left or right, should not be 501c4. It is only because the IRS, for decades, has not followed the original language of what a 501c4 group was supposed to operate like that this "loophole" is now being exploited at the level that it currently is. They started down this slippery slope long ago and because of the Citizens United ruling they are now faced with a mountain instead of a molehill.

These groups should either have to file 527 or cease any and all political activity.
 
Media Matters is actually a 501c3.

Like I said they aren't a 501(c)(4).

To me, this is an even bigger abomination than if they were a c4
Why? Conservative and Liberal groups have existed under 501(c)(3) status forever based on "educating the populace". There's nothing requiring you to be non-partisan in "educating" individuals.

These groups should either have to file 527 or cease any and all political activity
Ehhh....I agree with you on the idea that there's a lot of funny business but I think there should be non-profit statuses for groups that just educate and don't campaign (like "Media Matters" or "Citizens Against Government Waste" to use the other side).
 
Hair splitting at best, since Media Matters is tax exempt under 501(c)(3) "charitable", and is also specifically prohibited from engaging in many political activities.

Want to File an IRS Complaint Against Media Matters? Click Here... - Fox Nation

Exemption requirements: 501(c)(3) organizations

First of all....Media Matters is not the only partisan tax exempt group under 501(c)(3) which is what you would deduce from Fox Nation reporting.

In fact here's a list of some 501(c)(3) conservative organizations with some existing since the 80's.

PolicyExperts.org - The Insider Guide to Public Policy Experts and Organizations

Media Matters doesn't campaign, lobby, or fund ads against any political canidates.

There's a huge difference between being a political action group and being extremely partisan. Like in my link I posted...Conservative groups have been "educating the populace" under 501(3)(c) status for decades. The gumshoe reporters at Fox Nation must of just missed that easy to google information.
 
Correction: rocket88 cares more about politics than truth

I have not now, nor have I ever defended the actions of the IRS, except in the minds of Conservatives who say "Uhh...he doesn't think Darrel Issa is a Saint. He's defending them!"

Their actions were wrong, but that is not what interests Issa or his committee. That is not why the hearings are being held, and that is not why you are beating their drum for them.
 
My... another transparent Obama administration employee.

My...another Bush appointee.

"Lerner was appointed as head of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division during the Bush administration, in 2006."

Well... I think we should go into the files and see who she and her Gestapo style Posse called, and for how long and how often. If they can log our calls... I'm sure they would be watching our little IRS/Gestapo too.

Put those records to good use... lets' have Lerner and her Posse of Taxholes at bat, and learn a thing or two more about how these thugs operate.
"Gestapo style", eh. lol

Maine gov apologizes for ‘Gestapo’ remark – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
(CNN) – Maine Gov. Paul LePage apologized Monday for referring to the Internal Revenue Service as the "Gestapo" in his weekly radio address over the weekend.

"It was not my intent to insult anyone, especially the Jewish Community, or minimize the fact that millions of people were murdered," the Republican governor said in a statement....read

Republicans seem to have a bad case of 'hoof in mouth' disease.
 
Ehhh....I agree with you on the idea that there's a lot of funny business but I think there should be non-profit statuses for groups that just educate and don't campaign (like "Media Matters" or "Citizens Against Government Waste" to use the other side).

Media Matters is just as political as any Tea Party group. They should not be tax exempt.
 
Why? Conservative and Liberal groups have existed under 501(c)(3) status forever based on "educating the populace". There's nothing requiring you to be non-partisan in "educating" individuals.
Under the current definition of 501c3 you are correct. There is nothing in there that requires non partisanship. I can, however, read between the lines and conclude that groups like Media Matters and whatever their equivalent is on the right are actually doing is HIDING behind that status and do not at all reflect the spirit of what 501c3 status was ever intended to be. The same sources that fund these groups also fund super PACs, 501c4s, and individual candidates. That ought to tell you something about their true purpose, right there.
 
Being against those going after it is not that different from supporting it. ;)

I think it's a big difference. I'm interested in the truth of what happened, not in burning Democrats at the stake. If Obama is responsible, he should be impeached. However, there's no evidence of that. All the evidence that goes against the result of removing Obama is automatically decried on the right as "lies." If they were interested in the truth, they'd lend as much credence to that evidence as to any other evidence.

I don't support stripping Lois Lerner of her 5th Amendment rights either. Any criminal has the right to stop answering questions at any point during a police interrogation. The fact that they answered the first 10, does not obligate them to answer the 11th question. This is the same thing. Lerner has the right to stop answering questions at any point, and giving a statement does not take that right away.
 
I have not now, nor have I ever defended the actions of the IRS, except in the minds of Conservatives who say "Uhh...he doesn't think Darrel Issa is a Saint. He's defending them!"

Their actions were wrong, but that is not what interests Issa or his committee. That is not why the hearings are being held, and that is not why you are beating their drum for them.

Just to point something out--the reason why there are hearings right now is because the IRS is required to submit to congressional oversight. Combine this with a low level of confidence that the IG office will do a capable job of rooting out whats going on over there and the musical chairs at the head office, and you have something that congress probably should look at to protect their constituents and ensure even application of the law.

If Holder hadnt stonewalled so many other times on other issues its possible there wouldnt need to be hearings and the IG could be trusted to be able to do his job unhindered. The Walpin firing slants into this as well.
 
I think it's a big difference. I'm interested in the truth of what happened, not in burning Democrats at the stake. If Obama is responsible, he should be impeached. However, there's no evidence of that. All the evidence that goes against the result of removing Obama is automatically decried on the right as "lies." If they were interested in the truth, they'd lend as much credence to that evidence as to any other evidence.

I don't support stripping Lois Lerner of her 5th Amendment rights either. Any criminal has the right to stop answering questions at any point during a police interrogation. The fact that they answered the first 10, does not obligate them to answer the 11th question. This is the same thing. Lerner has the right to stop answering questions at any point, and giving a statement does not take that right away.


Obama's chief consul at the White House knew about it. Do you really think he didnt know about it or do you think he didnt know about it in a plausibly deniable sort of way?

Edit addition: sure Lerner can plead the fifth. She then should surrender any and all benefits of being an employee of the executive branch with no unemployment, no benefits, no severage package and no notice. Employees of the executive branch should be required to answer questioning under congressional committee or get the hell out of public service.
 
Obama's chief consul at the White House knew about it. Do you really think he didnt know about it or do you think he didnt know about it in a plausibly deniable sort of way?

I'm saying we can't say for sure one way or the other based on the evidence so far. Person A knowing =/= Person B knowing.
 
Media Matters is just as political as any Tea Party group. They should not be tax exempt.

All political groups are Tax exempt.

If you engage in actual campaigning/lobbying/influencing elections you qualify as a 527 (DNC, RNC etc). You have to disclose your donors.

If you engage in "educating" as your primary duty and you don't campaign/lobby/influence elections you can classify as a 501(c)(3) (Median Matters, ALEC etc). People that fund these organizations are made public but there's ways around that. You can give to an organization that funnels money to one of these groups (laxer rules) for example Iliveonramen gives to a the Annenberg Trust which gives money to Media Matters. When that donation is disclosed it just reads "Annenberg Trust". I would agree that there should be a specific code for highly partisan groups that "educate" with better disclosure rules.

The issue with 501(c)(4)s are that you don't disclose anything to the public whatsoever. I could giver a trillion dollars to the "foundation for making things Liberal" and that trillion could be used to campaign on behalf of Obama (without direct talking to them of course!) and no one would know whose funding it.
 
And specifically targeting Americans for their political beliefs isn't political? :lol:

You're acting like the two are not connected. That if this investigation damages Obama politically (especially if it's shown he or his campaign/administration coordinated it) that it's somehow not credible or justified. It's not the Republicans fault that the IRS under Obama is acting the like the Gestapo and specifically targeting Americans for their beliefs.

Who else is going to investigate this? Who else has the power? You think the Democrats are going to investigate their own fascism and corruption? :lol:
lol Do you really think Republicans would have started an investigation knowing that tea party organizations were trying to claim they were "social welfare" groups in order to get subsidized by taxpayers? No, it was the Democrats who first started the investigation....

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...review-political-spending-by-nonprofits/?_r=0

The United States Senate Committee on Finance: Newsroom - Chairman's News
 
Under the current definition of 501c3 you are correct. There is nothing in there that requires non partisanship. I can, however, read between the lines and conclude that groups like Media Matters and whatever their equivalent is on the right are actually doing is HIDING behind that status and do not at all reflect the spirit of what 501c3 status was ever intended to be. The same sources that fund these groups also fund super PACs, 501c4s, and individual candidates. That ought to tell you something about their true purpose, right there.

I would 100% be for a status for groups that are "educational" in purpose with tougher laws regarding who gives what. We're 100% in agreement with that.

The specific attack on Media Matters though as if they are the only 501c3 that exists and conservative groups haven't been doing it for decades is disingenuous. I'm not saying you're making that argument but most of my posts have been directed at individuals that think Media Matters is an anomaly.
 
Back
Top Bottom