• 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!

AP Exclusive: IRS knew tea party targeted in 2011

digsbe said:
Honestly, I'm completely baffled that anyone would be OK with this or try to defend it. Don't be so enslaved by your ideology that you justify the anti-American practice of trying to silence or disadvantage groups by the government because the government or those in the government do not like the ideology. This is wrong, and it doesn't matter what happened in the past, that excuses nothing.
Click to expand...

Yes, it seems like those on the left are okay with the IRS abusing their authority, as long as it is the Tea Party that they are doing it to. Let me ask those that think what they did is okay, how about if they started asking questions about who they knew? What are the political views of yourselves or the people you know?

Are those kind of questions okay? You know, like Senator McCarthy was asking in the 50's?
 
Mithros said:
FYI, simply saying "do your research" may be a convienient way to turn the conversation, but does nothing to convince me. If anything it makes your position look weaker and more ill informed.

And I have done research. I find google to be a powerful tool, particularly in date limited searches. I looked for articles around 2010 relating to 501c4 groups.
Republicans' secret formula ? 501(c)(4) - Los Angeles Times

Here we see that GOPs were the biggest filers, and a big push for the IRS to crack down on what amounts to political money laundering. (Ie groups existing for the sole purpose of influencing elections without having to disclose their donors)

It is VERY obvious that this was a concerted Republican strategy, especially in 2010, 2011. Approaching the 2012 election, the filings were more balanced.

Crossroads GPS is a 501c4 group. I find it hard to make the case that it is a social welfare organization who's primary purpose is *not* political. (The same case can be made for some liberal leaning 503c4 groups).

Agents processing 501c4 applications were suddenly bombarded with groups that had patriot, or tea party in their names. So they did what came natural, they gave those groups greater scrutiny. While I can understand the attraction to profiling, it is un-American and we need to both investigate what happened, and fix the mess of 501c4 groups.
Click to expand...

Well let's see. You've posted information from your google seaches that have resulted in Huffington Post articles, a leftist organization, and The Center for Public Integrity, a far left progressive "research" group funded by George Soros and others in the Progressive Machine. And now you've posted more information from the Los Angeles Times, a failing far left newpaper.

Question, how much has been spent on "social programs" designed to elect liberal/progressive candidates, and push a liberal/progressive agenda by previously identified groups like the Annennburg Trust, the Ford Foundation, the Tides Foundation, the James L. Knight Foudation, the Pew Charitable Trust, Open Society Institute, etc.? All of these groups have long established 501c3 status.

What you're not recognizing is that by using time limiting searches, your excluding the billions spent by far left liberal/progressive 501c3 groups. These groups were already set up. It can be shown that even today, Republicans are trying to catch up in the 501c3 arena.
 
ocean515 said:
Well let's see. You've posted information from your google seaches that have resulted in Huffington Post articles, a leftist organization, and The Center for Public Integrity, a far left progressive "research" group funded by George Soros and others in the Progressive Machine. And now you've posted more information from the Los Angeles Times, a failing far left newpaper.

Question, how much has been spent on "social programs" designed to elect liberal/progressive candidates, and push a liberal/progressive agenda by previously identified groups like the Annennburg Trust, the Ford Foundation, the Tides Foundation, the James L. Knight Foudation, the Pew Charitable Trust, Open Society Institute, etc.? All of these groups have long established 501c3 status.

What you're not recognizing is that by using time limiting searches, your excluding the billions spent by far left liberal/progressive 501c3 groups. These groups were already set up. It can be shown that even today, Republicans are trying to catch up in the 501c3 arena.
Click to expand...

I really don't see your point. I understand why the targeting of conservative groups would be upsetting, frankly I'm upset by it as well. But the rest seems like an willful ignorance to reality.

I have repeatedly said that left wing groups engaged in the same behaviour, but to a lesser extent. In 2010, 83% of the 501(c)(4) political expenditures came from Republican affiliated groups.

Look, these groups are engaged in what is essentially money laundering for political contributions. The IRS rightly tried to crack down on it, and I applaud their investigation into 300 of these potentially fraudulent groups. However, they should not have specifically targeted the 75 conservative groups which were targeted solely because they were conservative groups.
 
PeteEU said:
I understand you fully and I agree.

But this is fake outrage... and you know it. The right have finally gotten something on the IRS and are going full throttle on it. But when it comes to abuses of power by the right themselves... oh that is not a problem.

At least in this case, the abuse of power if any, was some what warranted. There was a hell of a lot of Tea Party linked organisations popping up and considering that even some of the Tea Party top had criminal backgrounds... for fraud, then what do you expect? "Oh this is a right wing organisation... that must mean they are totally legit, despite the leader being a convicted check bouncer or fraudster.. nothing wrong there and no need to look into it." Sorry but there is and on that issue I fully support the IRS in doing their freaking jobs for once. Now if they would also do it against big companies and the wealthy... then we might be getting some where.

Now on the more general abuse of power by a sitting administration... Iraq war scandal under Bush (what is to now? 10 billion dollars+ missing?), AG scandal under Bush, Katrina under Bush, Iran Contra under Reagan and so on and so on. Where were the exact same people who are now complaining over the IRS vs Tea Party when all this happened? Oh yea defending the abusers most likely.

What I fear, is that this case turns into the terror report case a few years ago, where the right managed to push off the administration in investigating right wing terror groups in the US, because of a report ordered by Bush happened to come out under Obama and pointed a lot of fingers to a major problem in America with right wing extremism. After this the IRS could stop looking into political and religious organisations for tax fraud, and that is a very bad thing.
Click to expand...

If YOU are the one who is being targeted, would YOU be faking outrage? I didn't think so, I don't give a damn if the guys being targeted are astroturfers, extremists, or what have you. It is human nature. The outrage is real, unless you live in a cartoon world.
 
Mithros said:
I really don't see your point. I understand why the targeting of conservative groups would be upsetting, frankly I'm upset by it as well. But the rest seems like an willful ignorance to reality.

I have repeatedly said that left wing groups engaged in the same behaviour, but to a lesser extent. In 2010, 83% of the 501(c)(4) political expenditures came from Republican affiliated groups.

Look, these groups are engaged in what is essentially money laundering for political contributions. The IRS rightly tried to crack down on it, and I applaud their investigation into 300 of these potentially fraudulent groups. However, they should not have specifically targeted the 75 conservative groups which were targeted solely because they were conservative groups.
Click to expand...

My point is this. Taking the figures you found in the leftist news articles and reports on face value, the fact the majority of applications seen shortly after the Citizens United decision were affiliated with Republican groups does not by itself mean they were entering in an attempt to get into some tax fraud,money laundering thing.

It seems quite obvious they were looking to organize to counter the billions that had already been spent through the shadow operations of the Progressive Machine. That's billions. That's not a lesser extent.

For example, Annenberg has been invited into our nations classrooms via their Annenberg Learner program, which pushes a Progressive agenda as a foundation to support Progressive ideology and the candidates who support it. Why don't you read their annual report and then comment about "lesser" extents?

Annenberg Foundation | Financial Information

The Tides Foundation pushes their agenda and funds liberal/progressive candidates and legislation protected from taxes by 501c3 status as well, along with outfits like the Ford Foundation, and the MacArther Foundation.

Lesser extent? That's laughable.
 
ocean515 said:
My point is this. Taking the figures you found in the leftist news articles and reports on face value, the fact the majority of applications seen shortly after the Citizens United decision were affiliated with Republican groups does not by itself mean they were entering in an attempt to get into some tax fraud,money laundering thing.

It seems quite obvious they were looking to organize to counter the billions that had already been spent through the shadow operations of the Progressive Machine. That's billions. That's not a lesser extent.

For example, Annenberg has been invited into our nations classrooms via their Annenberg Learner program, which pushes a Progressive agenda as a foundation to support Progressive ideology and the candidates who support it. Why don't you read their annual report and then comment about "lesser" extents?

Annenberg Foundation | Financial Information

The Tides Foundation pushes their agenda and funds liberal/progressive candidates and legislation protected from taxes by 501c3 status as well, along with outfits like the Ford Foundation, and the MacArther Foundation.

Lesser extent? That's laughable.
Click to expand...

The political organizations, both left and right, filing for 501(c)(4) status were almost all universally engaging in behaviour that was contrary to the spirit of the law. Here's the important question, why would any organization file as a 501(c)(4) when they could file as a 527? Filing as a 501(c)(4) creates many headaches that don't exist for a 527. However, 501(c)(4)'s don't have to disclose their donors.

Citizens united opened the door to unlimited corporate spending on campaigns. However, corporations don't want to be seen as political, because they're not interested in red or blue dollars, they'd rather stick with the green stuff. So after Citizen's United, the primary use of 501(c)(4)s in poliitcal campaigns was to evade the financial disclosure requirements of 527's, while masqurading as public welfare groups. This was done by both left and right wing groups, but it was roughtly an 80/20 split, conservative vs liberal.

During 2010-2011, there was a tremendous outcry by campaign finance watchdog groups, (on both sides) to investigate behaviour that was clearly not in keeping with the purpose of 501(c)(4) organizations. The IRS tried to comply, but did it incorrectly, profiling the groups most likely to engage in illicit behaviour.

I'm not exactly sure about your facination with the so called "progressive machine" (whatever that is). But seriously, If you can find it.. please take it out back and put it out of its misery. If such a thing exits, why couldn't it managed to get universal backgroud checks passed with the presidency, the senate, and with 90% public support. It's like striking out at T-Ball... in a league that doesn't count a miss as a strike.
 
Mithros said:
The political organizations, both left and right, filing for 501(c)(4) status were almost all universally engaging in behaviour that was contrary to the spirit of the law. Here's the important question, why would any organization file as a 501(c)(4) when they could file as a 527? Filing as a 501(c)(4) creates many headaches that don't exist for a 527. However, 501(c)(4)'s don't have to disclose their donors.

Citizens united opened the door to unlimited corporate spending on campaigns. However, corporations don't want to be seen as political, because they're not interested in red or blue dollars, they'd rather stick with the green stuff. So after Citizen's United, the primary use of 501(c)(4)s in poliitcal campaigns was to evade the financial disclosure requirements of 527's, while masqurading as public welfare groups. This was done by both left and right wing groups, but it was roughtly an 80/20 split, conservative vs liberal.

During 2010-2011, there was a tremendous outcry by campaign finance watchdog groups, (on both sides) to investigate behaviour that was clearly not in keeping with the purpose of 501(c)(4) organizations. The IRS tried to comply, but did it incorrectly, profiling the groups most likely to engage in illicit behaviour.

I'm not exactly sure about your facination with the so called "progressive machine" (whatever that is). But seriously, If you can find it.. please take it out back and put it out of its misery. If such a thing exits, why couldn't it managed to get universal backgroud checks passed with the presidency, the senate, and with 90% public support. It's like striking out at T-Ball... in a league that doesn't count a miss as a strike.
Click to expand...

Taking the figures you've "located" for face value, you've taken a slice of time and drawn a conclusion about what that time represents. 80/20 has no meaning when viewed in the context of your claims about money laundering and tax evasion.

As to the "Progressive Machine", I have already suggested you do some research and even provided a link as a starting point. You'll find George Soros, Tides, Annenberg, AFL-CIO, the NEA, and many others, all together, all serving on various Boards together, all involved in hundreds of millions spent to push the Progressive agenda.
 
Mithros said:
The political organizations, both left and right, filing for 501(c)(4) status were almost all universally engaging in behaviour that was contrary to the spirit of the law. Here's the important question, why would any organization file as a 501(c)(4) when they could file as a 527? Filing as a 501(c)(4) creates many headaches that don't exist for a 527. However, 501(c)(4)'s don't have to disclose their donors.

Citizens united opened the door to unlimited corporate spending on campaigns. However, corporations don't want to be seen as political, because they're not interested in red or blue dollars, they'd rather stick with the green stuff. So after Citizen's United, the primary use of 501(c)(4)s in poliitcal campaigns was to evade the financial disclosure requirements of 527's, while masqurading as public welfare groups. This was done by both left and right wing groups, but it was roughtly an 80/20 split, conservative vs liberal.

During 2010-2011, there was a tremendous outcry by campaign finance watchdog groups, (on both sides) to investigate behaviour that was clearly not in keeping with the purpose of 501(c)(4) organizations. The IRS tried to comply, but did it incorrectly, profiling the groups most likely to engage in illicit behaviour.

I'm not exactly sure about your facination with the so called "progressive machine" (whatever that is). But seriously, If you can find it.. please take it out back and put it out of its misery. If such a thing exits, why couldn't it managed to get universal backgroud checks passed with the presidency, the senate, and with 90% public support. It's like striking out at T-Ball... in a league that doesn't count a miss as a strike.
Click to expand...

If that's true, then why did the IRS only go after Right Wing and Jewish groups?
 
apdst said:
If that's true, then why did the IRS only go after Right Wing and Jewish groups?
Click to expand...

300 groups were targeted, 75 of them were conservative.

The issue is not that the groups were targeted, it's likely that they deserved to be targeted. The issue is why they were targeted.
 
Mithros said:
300 groups were targeted, 75 of them were conservative.

The issue is not that the groups were targeted, it's likely that they deserved to be targeted. The issue is why they were targeted.
Click to expand...

Ok...LOL!!!! Why isn't the IRS using that as their defense?

If that were true, the IRS wouldn't have apologized for their wrong doing.
 
PeteEU said:
I dont see the problem.. any organisation that gets tax exemption should be the constant target of the IRS to see if they abuse the tax exemption rules.
Click to expand...

because when you are targeting specific groups, due to their political lean, it serves as the government endorsing one political group over another
 
PeteEU said:
So it is bad when the IRS is used as a political tool, but when the military and Justice departments are used as political tools, then it is not a problem?
Click to expand...

usual PeteEU tactic: say something moronic> have it addressed> change subjects
 
Deuce said:
Personally I think all such groups need additional scrutiny. The rules say they aren't supposed to be trying to influence legislation, but there are just SO MANY of these groups that have clear political intentions. I mean, an organization whose express purpose is to legalize marijuana isn't trying to influence legislation? Really?



THEY LITERALLY SAY THEIR GOAL IS TO INFLUENCE THE LAW. It's their reason for existence.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ng-conservative-political-groups-2012-el.html

read Luthors posts in this thread
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
because when you are targeting specific groups, due to their political lean, it serves as the government endorsing one political group over another
Click to expand...

Imagine if they'd targeted Moveon or some other leftie group, Pete would be up in arms.....control. :lol:
 
notquiteright said:
Actually we have little knowledge of what Koch brothers have as slush funds anymore than we do of Union slush funds. But the right loves to say there are. I saw The sunday talk shows I didn't see an uproar but then again I am not a right wing leaner. Funny we go from Union slush funds to comparing Koch to Soros, not a convincing argument... 'they do it too!' :roll:
Click to expand...

Same can be stated for George Soros. But I am not up in arms about how rich people spend their money. That's all you.

notquiteright said:
Many groups can be very ahhh discrete on who gave how much, super pacs are fun things they can accept money as a 501(c)[4] from non profits and not have to disclose who donated what. the non Profit as like a money launderer.
Click to expand...

Supreme Court ruled that legal. IRS can't do **** about it and for the IRS to ask for a list of donors is illegal (a crime).

notquiteright said:
The astroturf label sticks because it is true, take FreedomWorks. Half it's 2012 haul came from one man, Richard Stephenson. 94% came from big gift donors and by using the non profit many names can be hidden.
Click to expand...

Astroturf applies to a few and the term Tea Party was hijacked by the Bachmann's and Koch's of the Republican party. The Tea Party I was involved in started in 2007. It came from Ron Paul supporters, people who had no "social" agenda. Freedomworks started in 2004 and was one of those that hijacked the movement. So they aren't on my "friends" list but it doesn't matter where the got their money to me and the law allow for discrete donations in 501(c)(4)s. It's the law of the land since Citizen United case. So deal with it.


notquiteright said:
The problem as many see it is by using the non profit tax sheild astro turf organizations can effectively hide who gives how much and is the organization a true grass roots or astro-turf outfit.
When it comes to bud nipping the GOP fillibustered the attempt to reform 'dark money'. Astro-turf is safe for now....
Click to expand...

Citizen's United case. The ACLU and Citizens United | American Civil Liberties Union

Can we go after Moveon.org? Since Linda Pritzker and George Soros are the two who paid $5 million to start it up. How about the Tides Foundation? George Soros loves to fund that. ACORN as well? Since it's funded by money from Tide Foundation and it's former CEO Drummond Pike who covered up the fraud that took place there. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/us/17acorn.html
 
Last edited:
Oh no doubt the proper hands will be slapped by whoever, but the point is it wouldn't be out of line to check after a series of reports that astro-turf organizations were skirting the tax laws. In today's world Al Capone could make a good case of IRS harassment!

I have no heartburn on how the very rich spend their money, just they should be open and honest about it. An Organization like tea party Patriots getting 1 mil from an anonymous donor isn't a grass roots movement.

I'm not defending the IRS, just admiring the wave it caused in 'conservative' circles... is funny how Soros gets drug out to balance dozens of wealthy 'conservative' political manipulators.
 
notquiteright said:
Oh no doubt the proper hands will be slapped by whoever, but the point is it wouldn't be out of line to check after a series of reports that astro-turf organizations were skirting the tax laws. In today's world Al Capone could make a good case of IRS harassment!

I have no heartburn on how the very rich spend their money, just they should be open and honest about it. An Organization like tea party Patriots getting 1 mil from an anonymous donor isn't a grass roots movement.

I'm not defending the IRS, just admiring the wave it caused in 'conservative' circles... is funny how Soros gets drug out to balance dozens of wealthy 'conservative' political manipulators.
Click to expand...

No you arent defending it, you are excusing it. By pushing the point that conservative organizations are not honest, you are lessening the wrongdoing on the part of the IRS. Its called deflection and its obvious. The Capone name drop? Cmon. The IRS should not be conducting tax investigations based upon political affiliation....PERIOD. End of story. Done.

There are no excuses for this kind of action, its a fundamental threat to political freedom and affiliation. Its part of what got articles of impeachment written up for Nixon. When you can admit that this was flat wrong and nothing excuses it, we can talk. If you cant, you are just another partisan carrying water.
 
PeteEU said:
I dont see the problem.. any organisation that gets tax exemption should be the constant target of the IRS to see if they abuse the tax exemption rules.
Click to expand...

Very very true. I'd rather there not be any tax exempt status at all but in this case, partisan ideology should not be the criterea for which to decide who to and who not to investigate.
 
Deuce said:
Why do you believe this would be better?
Click to expand...

Treasury is responsible for managing the country's financial resources. It seems fitting they manage the input as well. Who would YOU suggest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom