• 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 officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

polgara said:
Good afternoon, ocean515. :2wave:

Maybe if the government stopped all the "let's concentrate on tightening the screws on the American people" crap, and instead started doing the job they were elected to do, we would not be discussing their failures in Benghazi! That showed me more about what they really think of us than anything else they could have done! :thumbdown: We're apparently expendable...that is until they need us to provide more tax money for them to spend on things like the latest solar company who filed bankruptcy shortly after they received millions of our tax dollars! Odd how our hard-earned money goes into a bottomless pit never to be seen again, with nothing to show for it.. you'd think they would at least give us each a solar panel or a solar wind-chime, or something for our contribution... :bs:
Click to expand...

Hi Polgara :2wave:

Oh I think "they" are giving us something alright. It's just that it used to involve a cigarette once it was over.

It's been my experience that when one tries to manipulate and obfuscate, the end result is always a disaster.

It seems to me, we're seeing lots of disasters, which would indicate manipulation and obfuscation have been at play.

How about listening to some business owners, and focusing on jobs, rather than a legacy, and an attempt to transform the nation into something it was never meant to be?
 
IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups

IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups - ProPublica

The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year.

The IRS did not respond to requests Monday following up about that release, and whether it had determined how the applications were sent to ProPublica.

In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.)

On Friday, Lois Lerner, the head of the division on tax-exempt organizations, apologized to Tea Party and other conservative groups because the IRS’ Cincinnati office had unfairly targeted them. Tea Party groups had complained in early 2012 that they were being sent overly intrusive questionnaires in response to their applications
Click to expand...

After receiving the unapproved applications, ProPublica tried to determine why they had been sent. In emails, IRS spokespeople said ProPublica shouldn’t have received them.

“It has come to our attention that you are in receipt of application materials of organizations that have not been recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt,” wrote one spokeswoman, Michelle Eldridge. She cited a law saying that publishing unauthorized returns or return information was a felony punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

In response, ProPublica’s then-general manager and now president, Richard Tofel, said, "ProPublica believes that the information we are publishing is not barred by the statute cited by the IRS, and it is clear to us that there is a strong First Amendment interest in its publication.”

ProPublica also redacted parts of the application to omit financial information.
Click to expand...

So...the IRS sent documents on unapproved files breaching privacy rights for some groups as well. Im sorry doesnt cut it. Start canning the people---either they are incompetent and shuldnt be trusted with private information or they did it maliciously and shouldnt be trusted with private information. Either way---they should be gone.
 
rocket88 said:
It doesn't excuse the IRS, but I think it's pretty obvious that Romney was just as much a big government guy as Obama. So were both Bushes, Clinton, Reagan....
Click to expand...

He may well have been, certainly no conservative. and not really relevant to the current scandals.
I doubt that anyone is as much a big government guy as Obama. But I think Romney's integrety level was well above Obama's.

And to just routinely claim that they know nothing about everything that happens is an insult to all of us, left, right, and middle. The buck sure does not make any stops at this Oval Office.
 
Zyphlin said:
And a lot of liberals have long insisted broad group profiling is inherently wrong and shouldn't be done, and are now flipping their **** at the audacity of people making noise about the IRS targeting political groups of a particular ideology and not saying more than a passing "ho hum that's bad" about the profiling going on (IF they even give that much).

Funny how you hypocritically respond to call out hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Did you somehow get the idea that I was defending the IRS' actions? I've called them inexcusable, unethical, probably illegal, predicted that someone high up in the IRS would probably be fired... do I need to burn an effigy or something before you're satisfied there, chief? Call for a good ol' fashioned hanging maybe? I know, let's waterboard... everyone. All the IRS agents.
 
OpportunityCost said:
IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups

IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups - ProPublica





So...the IRS sent documents on unapproved files breaching privacy rights for some groups as well. Im sorry doesnt cut it. Start canning the people---either they are incompetent and shuldnt be trusted with private information or they did it maliciously and shouldnt be trusted with private information. Either way---they should be gone.
Click to expand...
And prosecuted. This is illegal, and to make matters worse, they knew it was. They thought they would get away with this, and in some respects at least, they did.
 
Deuce said:
Did you somehow get the idea that I was defending the IRS' actions? I've called them inexcusable, unethical, probably illegal, predicted that someone high up in the IRS would probably be fired... do I need to burn an effigy or something before you're satisfied there, chief? Call for a good ol' fashioned hanging maybe? I know, let's waterboard... everyone. All the IRS agents.
Click to expand...

There is a punchline for that.

What would you call that?












A good start.
 
Deuce said:
Did you somehow get the idea that I was defending the IRS' actions? I've called them inexcusable, unethical, probably illegal, predicted that someone high up in the IRS would probably be fired... do I need to burn an effigy or something before you're satisfied there, chief? Call for a good ol' fashioned hanging maybe? I know, let's waterboard... everyone. All the IRS agents.
Click to expand...

You've run interferance on this deal since it first broke.
 
rocket88 said:
I wouldn't say that's just a left wing thing. Republicans have done plenty to make government agencies with sweeping powers -- does the Department of Homeland Security ring a bell? Not only was that a brand new cabinet post, it also nationalized an industry.

I'm really disturbed by these allegations. The problem that I see is this -- you sweep away Obama and replace him with what? The Republican party is as much a part of this as the Democratic party is, so swapping out donkeys for elephants does NOTHING to change the dynamic. There was a sea change movement coming, but the TP and OWS never realized that they were protesting the same thing, and the two parties have each used the other to further divide Americans and conquer
Click to expand...

Furthermore, the GOP did this themselves. In the Bush years, liberal non-profits were targeted specifically. What is actually worse about that is Citizens' United didn't happen, so they weren't functioning as PACs. So there really wasn't a reasonable reason to target them specifically. Tax experts for years have been complaining that the 501(c)4 has been abused up the yin yang. I personally think that the IRS didn't go far enough. We either have to get Congress to rewrite the 501(c)4 or we come to peace with letting the IRS go ape **** on potential PAC abusers.
 
obvious Child said:
Furthermore, the GOP did this themselves. In the Bush years, liberal non-profits were targeted specifically. What is actually worse about that is Citizens' United didn't happen, so they weren't functioning as PACs. So there really wasn't a reasonable reason to target them specifically. Tax experts for years have been complaining that the 501(c)4 has been abused up the yin yang. I personally think that the IRS didn't go far enough. We either have to get Congress to rewrite the 501(c)4 or we come to peace with letting the IRS go ape **** on potential PAC abusers.
Click to expand...

So long as they treat everyone equally. Which isnt what happened here. Targeting a specific ideology is not equality under the law.
 
obvious Child said:
Furthermore, the GOP did this themselves. In the Bush years, liberal non-profits were targeted specifically. What is actually worse about that is Citizens' United didn't happen, so they weren't functioning as PACs. So there really wasn't a reasonable reason to target them specifically. Tax experts for years have been complaining that the 501(c)4 has been abused up the yin yang. I personally think that the IRS didn't go far enough. We either have to get Congress to rewrite the 501(c)4 or we come to peace with letting the IRS go ape **** on potential PAC abusers.
Click to expand...

I think you need to cite some proof of that in some way. I imagine it would be covered a lot more exhaustively by the press if it had happened under a republican.
 
OpportunityCost said:
I think you need to cite some proof of that in some way. I imagine it would be covered a lot more exhaustively by the press if it had happened under a republican.
Click to expand...

Theres a few articles out there about IRS targeting specific orgs like NAACP, churches when they made political remarks, etc. To the extent that it was ideologically motivated, its wrong. But Bush isnt President.
 
obvious Child said:
Furthermore, the GOP did this themselves. In the Bush years, liberal non-profits were targeted specifically. What is actually worse about that is Citizens' United didn't happen, so they weren't functioning as PACs. So there really wasn't a reasonable reason to target them specifically. Tax experts for years have been complaining that the 501(c)4 has been abused up the yin yang. I personally think that the IRS didn't go far enough. We either have to get Congress to rewrite the 501(c)4 or we come to peace with letting the IRS go ape **** on potential PAC abusers.
Click to expand...

Yeah right, maybe you can try and dig up some proof of your false claims.
 
obvious Child said:
Furthermore, the GOP did this themselves. In the Bush years, liberal non-profits were targeted specifically. What is actually worse about that is Citizens' United didn't happen, so they weren't functioning as PACs. So there really wasn't a reasonable reason to target them specifically. Tax experts for years have been complaining that the 501(c)4 has been abused up the yin yang. I personally think that the IRS didn't go far enough. We either have to get Congress to rewrite the 501(c)4 or we come to peace with letting the IRS go ape **** on potential PAC abusers.
Click to expand...

I don't see this as an either/or anyway, but I surely don't see coming to peace with "letting the IRS go ape **** " on anybody. It can't be partisan.
 
apdst said:
You've run interferance on this deal since it first broke.
Click to expand...

Interference? What, I'm involved in the big media coverup? :lamo
 
obvious Child said:
Furthermore, the GOP did this themselves. In the Bush years, liberal non-profits were targeted specifically. What is actually worse about that is Citizens' United didn't happen, so they weren't functioning as PACs. So there really wasn't a reasonable reason to target them specifically. Tax experts for years have been complaining that the 501(c)4 has been abused up the yin yang. I personally think that the IRS didn't go far enough. We either have to get Congress to rewrite the 501(c)4 or we come to peace with letting the IRS go ape **** on potential PAC abusers.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you are not aware of the abuses/violations committed by the IRS, or are in favor of an IRS that can do as they please and ignore our rights. Otherwise, it's hard to fathom anyone with the slightest intelligence saying that "the IRS didn't go far enough".
 
Anthony60 said:
I'm guessing that you are not aware of the abuses/violations committed by the IRS, or are in favor of an IRS that can do as they please and ignore our rights. Otherwise, it's hard to fathom anyone with the slightest intelligence saying that "the IRS didn't go far enough".
Click to expand...

What abuses? The problem was that the critera was biased, not that it was wrong. If anything these groups (and many others) should have received more scrutiny. The real abuse is by groups which file as 501(c)(4)s instead of non-profit 527s to avoid having to disclose their donors. This isn't just a conservative thing, the abuse is across the political spectrum.

These are not social welfare groups. They are primarily political organizations.
 
Deuce said:
A lot of conservatives have long insisted that racial profiling is just fine, and now they're all flipping their **** when they've become the target of profiling. It sure is amusing to watch!

And before anyone tries to label me a hypocrite, no, I am definitely not defending these actions by the IRS. My other posts on the subject demonstrate this.
Click to expand...

So you equate terrorism to unfair tax breaks.

OK.
 
Mithros said:
What abuses? The problem was that the critera was biased, not that it was wrong. If anything these groups (and many others) should have received more scrutiny. The real abuse is by groups which file as 501(c)(4)s instead of non-profit 527s to avoid having to disclose their donors. This isn't just a conservative thing, the abuse is across the political spectrum.

These are not social welfare groups. They are primarily political organizations.
Click to expand...

What abuses? How about targeting one group, the Tea Party? How about asking questions that have nothing to do with the request? Holding up the requests for over two years? Asking for political leanings, affiliations, who their donors are, if the donors have ever run for office, will they run for office in the future?
 
Mithros said:
What abuses? The problem was that the critera was biased, not that it was wrong. If anything these groups (and many others) should have received more scrutiny. The real abuse is by groups which file as 501(c)(4)s instead of non-profit 527s to avoid having to disclose their donors. This isn't just a conservative thing, the abuse is across the political spectrum.

These are not social welfare groups. They are primarily political organizations.
Click to expand...

They are social welfare groups, primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the community, as defined by the IRS. Why should anyone have to disclose donors to the IRS?
 
jonny5 said:
They are social welfare groups, primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the community, as defined by the IRS. Why should anyone have to disclose donors to the IRS?
Click to expand...

Um.....political organizations have to disclose their donors because historically anonymous campaign donations have led to widespread political corruption.

Saying that a tea party group is primarily engaged in social welfare is intellectually dishonest. Sure, if you want to hire a great lawyer, and bend/break the rules you can certainly get approved. But these groups have more in common with moveon.org (a 527) than with the AARP, (an actual 501(c)(4).
 
Anthony60 said:
What abuses? How about targeting one group, the Tea Party? How about asking questions that have nothing to do with the request? Holding up the requests for over two years? Asking for political leanings, affiliations, who their donors are, if the donors have ever run for office, will they run for office in the future?
Click to expand...

They didn't just target one group. There were 3400 applications per year, up from 1200 before citizens united. The increase in these groups were primarily political in nature and the majority were conservative groups. Of these 3400 per year, 300 total were subjected to additional questions and 75 of these were tea party groups.

That said, some of the criteria that was used to make these determinations appears to be politically biased. If the wording was changed from groups with Tea Party in their name to groups with Party in their name, most of the scandal would go away.
 
Mithros said:
What abuses? The problem was that the critera was biased, not that it was wrong. If anything these groups (and many others) should have received more scrutiny. The real abuse is by groups which file as 501(c)(4)s instead of non-profit 527s to avoid having to disclose their donors. This isn't just a conservative thing, the abuse is across the political spectrum.

These are not social welfare groups. They are primarily political organizations.
Click to expand...
Abuses?

The IRS provided the detailed information from these groups applying for tax exempt status to ProPublica. ProPublica, a liberal NON-PROFIT journalism association, would then use that information to write smearing attacks against these groups and their supporters. Those attacks were then picked up by mainstream media. What the IRS was doing was using it's power not only to subvert conservative organizations, they were also engaged in information laundering. Both are illegal as hell.
 
Mithros said:
Um.....political organizations have to disclose their donors because historically anonymous campaign donations have led to widespread political corruption.

Saying that a tea party group is primarily engaged in social welfare is intellectually dishonest. Sure, if you want to hire a great lawyer, and bend/break the rules you can certainly get approved. But these groups have more in common with moveon.org (a 527) than with the AARP, (an actual 501(c)(4).
Click to expand...

Its not dishonest at all. They meet the definition the IRS set forth. Perhaps your issue is with the label the IRS puts on it instead. Furthermore, disclosing donors leads to widespread political corruptions as seen by this story. The IRS agents are wanting orgs to expose their donors so they can harrass them. Which is why donors dont want to disclose. I see no reason why the IRS needs to know that I gave money to a private group who advocates for an issue.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Abuses?

The IRS provided the detailed information from these groups applying for tax exempt status to ProPublica. ProPublica, a liberal NON-PROFIT journalism association, would then use that information to write smearing attacks against these groups and their supporters. Those attacks were then picked up by mainstream media. What the IRS was doing was using it's power not only to subvert conservative organizations, they were also engaged in information laundering. Both are illegal as hell.
Click to expand...

That is something completely different than the investigations.

Even then, I have some sympathy for the IRS officials. We're dealing with a systematic effort to exploit the tax code so that buisnesses and CEOs can influence elections without their customers knowledge. This doesn't make any action taken by the handful of individuals responsible just, but it is certainly understandable.

Each and every one of these groups could have filed as a tax excempt 527. It would have required far less paperwork and they would have been almost immediately approved. Instead they tried to game the system. The IRS officials tried to game them back. Neither was right.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom