Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 80

Thread: Email: IRSís Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict nonpr

  1. #31
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,454
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Email: IRSís Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    You do realize that these 501(c)(4) groups are operating illegally in an attempt to bypass the public disclosure requirements of PACs; an abuse made possible with the Citizens United ruling. By law, theses groups must operate exclusively for the purpose of social welfare. This was changed in the 50's by the IRS to predominantly.

    Conservative groups were not targeted at a higher rate than any other political group. Conservative groups applied at a rate that was roughly 5x that of liberal groups, even though only about 4x as many were investigated. The real scandal is that so many were approved.
    Actually, I'm curious if the article contains a typo. 501(c)(4)s are allowed to be political. Its (3)s that have to be public benefit with some exceptions. Like a bicycle club can lobby for bicycle lanes.. Pretty sure the hullabaloo has been about (3)s up to this point.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  2. #32
    Guru

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

    Re: Email: IRSís Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Actually, I'm curious if the article contains a typo. 501(c)(4)s are allowed to be political. Its (3)s that have to be public benefit with some exceptions. Like a bicycle club can lobby for bicycle lanes.. Pretty sure the hullabaloo has been about (3)s up to this point.
    Here's what the law says
    US Code 501(c)(4)(A)
    Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. (highlight mine)

    And here's what the IRS has been enforcing
    IRS Publication 557 501(c)(4)
    To qualify for exemption under section 501(c)(4), the organization's net earnings must be devoted primarily to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. In addition, no part of the organization's net earnings can inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization provides an excess benefit to certain persons, an excise tax may be imposed. See Excise tax on excess benefit transactions , under Excess Benefit Transactions in chapter 5 for more information about this tax.

    So you're right that these organizations have been allowed to have some amount of political impact in the past, largely because the IRS has not been enforcing the law as written since the 50's. But that's because no one had a reason to break the law. Sure these organizations have been allowed to lobby pre Citizens United. But lobbying is not electioneering and doesn't require disclosure of donors.

    Anything you can do with a 501c4, a 527 can do better.... except now people are trying to use 501c4's to hide their donors. I don't see how anyone can be in favor of more dark money in politics.
    Last edited by Mithros; 02-06-14 at 03:45 PM.

  3. #33
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Email: IRSís Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Other than being totally off topic; what aboit it?
    Dude! Can you point me to a thread that's ever stayed on topic?? Anyway, didn't you post a thread arguing that Obama's IRS had engaged in wrong doing? And so didn't I post a link in which the FBI said, no they didn't??
    Last edited by Montecresto; 02-06-14 at 03:36 PM.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  4. #34
    Guru

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

    Re: Email: IRSís Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Why are their applications being held in limbo for months, even years rather than being denied outright, on appropriate grounds?
    Because the IRS was incompetent and didn't know what to do with them.

    Here's a better question. Why were these conservative groups applying in the first place? They didn't need to. All you need to do to form a 501c4 is to say "This is a 501c4" and then poof... It's a 501c4. Then you fill out a 990.

    BUT.. if these groups did the normal thing and simply declared themselves to be 501c4's, and the IRS later found out that they should have been 527s then they would have to disclose their donors. So they went through the approval process so they could guarantee potential donors that they were safe from the normal disclosure rules and that company X wouldn't have to face any scrutiny for supporting candidate Y.

  5. #35
    Guru

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

    Re: Email: IRSís Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    So how have they been allowed to operate illegally, as you stated? If they are illegal, why haven't they been exposed, and the people responsible brought to justice?
    They tried to.. There was a series of hearings carried out by the Senate. During this someone in the house (Issa?) filed a request to investigate if conservative groups had been investigated. The request was carefully scoped so the results were made to appear extremely partisan. If the request had been, were Liberal groups targeted by the IRS using terms like progress, move on, etc.. the report would have come back to say liberal groups were investigated by the IRS.

    That "scandal" essentially removed any overt political will to reinstating the regulations required by the tax code.

  6. #36
    Sage

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

    Re: Email: IRSís Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    They tried to.. There was a series of hearings carried out by the Senate. During this someone in the house (Issa?) filed a request to investigate if conservative groups had been investigated. The request was carefully scoped so the results were made to appear extremely partisan. If the request had been, were Liberal groups targeted by the IRS using terms like progress, move on, etc.. the report would have come back to say liberal groups were investigated by the IRS.

    That "scandal" essentially removed any overt political will to reinstating the regulations required by the tax code.
    Yes, I am familiar with many of the specifics. However, you stated they were operating illegally. Why are they allowed to continue, if indeed what they are doing is illegal?

  7. #37
    Guru

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

    Re: Email: IRSís Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Yes, I am familiar with many of the specifics. However, you stated they were operating illegally. Why are they allowed to continue, if indeed what they are doing is illegal?
    Because the law was not being enforced as written. And it wasn't being enforced because no one was using it to break campaign finance laws. This is the law:
    US Code 501(c)(4)(A)
    Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

    Now I've answered your questions. So I'll ask again, why would any of these groups file as a 501c4 when they could have filed as a tax exempt 527?

    Are you really in favor of dark money in politics?

  8. #38
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,506

    Re: Email: IRSís Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Dude! Can you point me to a thread that's ever stayed on topic?? Anyway, didn't you post a thread arguing that Obama's IRS had engaged in wrong doing? And so didn't I post a link in which the FBI said, no they didn't??
    Are you going to discuss this new evidence?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #39
    Sage

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

    Re: Email: IRSís Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Here's what the law says
    US Code 501(c)(4)(A)
    Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. (highlight mine)

    And here's what the IRS has been enforcing
    IRS Publication 557 501(c)(4)
    To qualify for exemption under section 501(c)(4), the organization's net earnings must be devoted primarily to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. In addition, no part of the organization's net earnings can inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization provides an excess benefit to certain persons, an excise tax may be imposed. See Excise tax on excess benefit transactions , under Excess Benefit Transactions in chapter 5 for more information about this tax.

    So you're right that these organizations have been allowed to have some amount of political impact in the past, largely because the IRS has not been enforcing the law as written since the 50's. But that's because no one had a reason to break the law. Sure these organizations have been allowed to lobby pre Citizens United. But lobbying is not electioneering and doesn't require disclosure of donors.

    Anything you can do with a 501c4, a 527 can do better.... except now people are trying to use 501c4's to hide their donors. I don't see how anyone can be in favor of more dark money in politics.
    Privacy?

  10. #40
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,506

    Re: Email: IRSís Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Because the IRS was incompetent and didn't know what to do with them.

    Here's a better question. Why were these conservative groups applying in the first place? They didn't need to. All you need to do to form a 501c4 is to say "This is a 501c4" and then poof... It's a 501c4. Then you fill out a 990.

    BUT.. if these groups did the normal thing and simply declared themselves to be 501c4's, and the IRS later found out that they should have been 527s then they would have to disclose their donors. So they went through the approval process so they could guarantee potential donors that they were safe from the normal disclosure rules and that company X wouldn't have to face any scrutiny for supporting candidate Y.
    Why didn't the IRS inform them that they needed to apply as 527's?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •