Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict nonpr

Montecresto · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Perotista said:
Oh yeah, not a problem. Those are the ones unable to remove their very deep red or blue colored glasses. They are very much like baseball fans who cheer their favorite team. Except they cheer the R and the D and do not care one iota what is happening behind the scenes, where they get their money from, whom they owe for that money. I do not think they even care how they govern or do as long as it is their party and not the other. I use to be that way. But working for Perot back in the 90's, he taught me how to step back, put cotton in my ears to stop all the rhetoric, slogans, talking points each party throws at you, to remove those deep red or blue colored glasses and only look at how they govern. What I have seen is not much difference. Both parties govern very much similar.

Yep. The day America collectively realizes that is the day the cockroaches run for cover. But alas, look around this thread at the partisan finger pointing!!

justabubba · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

American said:
I believe they are having hearings. And what did the FBI provide?

this:
The right’s boneheaded analogy: No, Christie’s debacle is not similar to the IRS case - Salon.com

It [FBI] announced that no one will be prosecuted in the IRS mess, because it found that the Tea Party “targeting” was part of a larger, poorly executed effort to handle a flood of new political groups on the left and the right claiming exemptions. The ham-handed process represented bad management, not an ideological vendetta.

your turn. what EVIDENCE of corruption has the committee found

Perotista · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Montecresto said:
Yep. The day America collectively realizes that is the day the cockroaches run for cover. But alas, look around this thread at the partisan finger pointing!!

Most people believe what they want to believe. They hear what they want to hear. The majority of Americans do not like what they see in politics today, but they also want to believe one party or the other can change that not realizing it is both parties that is the cause. As long as both parties owe their heart and soul to those who give them their hundreds of millions such as corporations, lobbyists, wall street, super pacs, real rich individuals and the likes, neither party will do what is good for America. Both parties will have to take care first those who give them their millions even if it is bad for America as a whole.

apdst · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Mithros said:
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.

Why are their applications being held in limbo for months, even years rather than being denied outright, on appropriate grounds?

apdst · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Montecresto said:
Except, what about this??

FBI Claims “No Evidence” of Wrongdoing in IRS Targeting Scandal
Read more at FBI Claims

Other than being totally off topic; what aboit it?

What if...? · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Mithros said:
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.

Mithros · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

What if...? said:
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.

Montecresto · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

apdst said:
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??

Mithros · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

apdst said:
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.

Mithros · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

ocean515 said:
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.

ocean515 · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Mithros said:
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?

Mithros · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

ocean515 said:
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?

apdst · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Montecresto said:
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?

jonny5 · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Mithros said:
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?

apdst · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Mithros said:
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?

Mithros · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

jonny5 said:
Privacy?

ie avoiding having to disclose donors. And by definition, that makes the groups ineligible for 501c4 status. The law doesn't say "devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes" or to hide your donors.

Mithros · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

apdst said:
Why didn't the IRS inform them that they needed to apply as 527's?

Why did a government organization operate like a bureaucracy?... hmmm..... tough one.

ocean515 · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Mithros said:
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?

So you're claim they are illegal is nothing but your opinion.

Got it.

Do I favor dark money in politics? I'd prefer full disclosure, but I have no problem with the Citizens United decision.

Mithros · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

ocean515 said:
So you're claim they are illegal is nothing but your opinion.

Got it.

Do I favor dark money in politics? I'd prefer full disclosure, but I have no problem with the Citizens United decision.

Once again, why did these groups file as 501c4s which by law must be operated EXCLUSIVELY for the promotion of social welfare? Why did they not file as tax exempt 527s?

Btw.. that's not my opinion, it's a direct quote from the law.

ocean515 · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Mithros said:
Once again, why did these groups file as 501c4s which by law must be operated EXCLUSIVELY for the promotion of social welfare? Why did they not file as tax exempt 527s?

Btw.. that's not my opinion, it's a direct quote from the law.

If they are operating illegally, why haven't they been cited? You seem to be making an observation not backed up by facts. I know the law, and continuing to post it doesn't mean anything.

Bottom line, if they registered as 501c4 groups, that is what they are. If they violate those IRS conditions, they are subject to fines, etc. Since it seems they haven't been fined, etc., I guess your opinion that they are illegal is just that, an opinion, and nothing more.

What if...? · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Mithros said:
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.

Yeah. I had my subdivisions mixed up. From what I understand, the IRS allowed political activity in (4)s in the fifties with a wording change.

I did understand the distinction and issues.

Mithros · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

ocean515 said:
If they are operating illegally, why haven't they been cited? You seem to be making an observation not backed up by facts. I know the law, and continuing to post it doesn't mean anything.

Bottom line, if they registered as 501c4 groups, that is what they are. If they violate those IRS conditions, they are subject to fines, etc. Since it seems they haven't been fined, etc., I guess your opinion that they are illegal is just that, an opinion, and nothing more.

Yeah.. if they weren't doing anything wrong, why didn't the IRS investigate them?... Oh wait...

You say that you're against dark money, but you support the use of 501c4's to engage in political activity for the sole purpose of hiding their donors. It sounds rather disingenuous.

eohrnberger · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

justabubba said:
the republicans on the committee or the committee
and what are the facts they have used to support their conclusion

Why would the guy feel compelled to apologize if there was nothing to apologize about?

Why would Lerner first state that she did no wrong, and then take the 5th when testifying before congress?

I'm tellin' ya', there's something not right there.

ocean515 · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Mithros said:
Yeah.. if they weren't doing anything wrong, why didn't the IRS investigate them?... Oh wait...

You say that you're against dark money, but you support the use of 501c4's to engage in political activity for the sole purpose of hiding their donors. It sounds rather disingenuous.

Have they been cited? Have they been shut down?

I think you're struggling with the distiction between "illegal", and in violation.

As to dark money, I think it's outrageous outfits like the Ford Foundation, or Annenberg get to do the agenda driven things they do under cover of their Charitable Trust designation. I think the National Teachers union is an outrage, as well as all the labor unions.

So, dark money? Hmmm. As I wrote, I'd prefer disclosure, but since that seems to be the third rail to most groups, I say step up and spend the money. For example, stealing peoples money through union dues and buying politicians with it is far more dangerous that a bunch of 501c4's trying to escape some tax liability.

Mithros · Feb 6, 2014

Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

ocean515 said:
Have they been cited? Have they been shut down?

I think you're struggling with the distiction between "illegal", and in violation.

As to dark money, I think it's outrageous outfits like the Ford Foundation, or Annenberg get to do the agenda driven things they do under cover of their Charitable Trust designation. I think the National Teachers union is an outrage, as well as all the labor unions.

So, dark money? Hmmm. As I wrote, I'd prefer disclosure, but since that seems to be the third rail to most groups, I say step up and spend the money. For example, stealing peoples money through union dues and buying politicians with it is far more dangerous that a bunch of 501c4's trying to escape some tax liability.

The thing is that no one is escaping any tax liability with 501c4s or 527s. 501c4s and 527s are tax exempt, but donations to them are not tax deductible. That means that no one is getting a tax deduction by contributing to political groups and political groups don't pay taxes because political groups don't financially benefit anyone.

The only difference is that 527's have to disclose their donors, while 501c4's don't. And by statute, 501c4s are not allowed to engage in politics.

These groups, both conservative and liberal, were trying to skirt the law. What they did was in violation of the law, or illegal... or however you want to describe it. The IRS regulations need to be rewritten, and all of these groups need to file as 527's so they can be regulated by the FEC.

Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict nonpr

long standing member