• 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!

Republicans Expand I.R.S. Inquiry, With Eye on White House

Ok, are left leaning organizations wanting to keep their donors unknown similarly? If yes then why the scrutiny of apparently just right wing c4's? If no then why didn't the Democrats, who maintained the majority in Congress and WH, change the 'rules' legislatively after Citizens united? And before you walk out the filibuster argument there has been enough talk of campaign finance reform by BOTH side it is a weak return.

As a matter of fact they did try to change the rules legislatively, but they didn't have enough votes to overcome a cloture vote.

DISCLOSE Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
 
Ok, are left leaning organizations wanting to keep their donors unknown similarly? If yes then why the scrutiny of apparently just right wing c4's? If no then why didn't the Democrats, who maintained the majority in Congress and WH, change the 'rules' legislatively after Citizens united? And before you walk out the filibuster argument there has been enough talk of campaign finance reform by BOTH side it is a weak return.
Absolutely. The big ones instantly come to mind. The League of Conservation Voters, Patriot Majority, Planned Parenthood, VoteVets.org etc....
2012 Outside Spending, by Group | OpenSecrets
 
The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=2&

Ok enough is enough is this not proof enough for impeachment

The republicans don't have the balls to impeach Obama despite the fact they could have this clown out of office before the end of the year.

I suppose the better question to ask is: do we really want "crazy" Joe Biden to finish Obamy's term?
 
We do? Who was it? Link please.

The only group I've seen to date that has been denied for 501(c)(4) status was Emerge America. They had previously been approved in 2006, did no electoral work, and didn't campaign at all. Their mission was to train democratic women for office. When they tried to expand in Maine, it was denied. Furthermore, 501(c)(4) status was denied for the entire national organization.
Emerge America and its initial state programs were granted 501(c)(4) status by the IRS several years ago. Later, when a new state program applied for the same status, it was denied because Emerge works only with women who are in the Democratic Party, so the IRS determined this did not meet the definition of “social welfare” for the common good. We believed this denial triggered a review of the Emerge programs that had already been granted c4 status, and consequently those statuses were revoked. Becoming 527 organizations has not hurt our fundraising or organizational expansion – we report our donors and continue our work fully transparently.

Contrast that with Central Valley Tea Party . They were approved for 501(c)(3) status meaning they weren't allowed to engage in any politics. It's pretty hard for me to look at the CVTP and say that they're a legitimate 501(c)(3) considering that all they do is to "educate" people about conservative issues. I'm not even sure I'd qualify them as a 501(c)(4).

We should want two things. 1). All groups should be held to the same well defined standard. While they made efforts and at least recognized the problem, there is obviously no consistency in the way the IRS approved 501(c) organizations. 2). Donations used for independent expenditures should be made public. People and groups of people have a right to free speech in elections, but we also have a right to know who's speaking.
 
The republicans don't have the balls to impeach Obama despite the fact they could have this clown out of office before the end of the year.

I suppose the better question to ask is: do we really want "crazy" Joe Biden to finish Obamy's term?

I seem to recall that impeachment requires 2/3rds of the house in order to impeach someone.
 
This would be good to know. Further the breakdown of left/right leaning groups would be even more revealing. One of the impetuses of this audit was a letter from Schumer that referenced a NYT article that questioned the legitimacy of both leans...

Exactly...more information...like the breakdown of left/right, the number of applications left/right.

I don't think anybody disagrees that using specific words like "Tea Party" is not what the IRS should be doing but....the IRS is in charge of enforcement of US tax laws and policies. Legislation needs to be passed regarding Citizens United and how it impacts these specific tax exempt corporations. Instead of trying to create some non-existent connection to the President supposedly using the IRS to attack his enemies why doesn't the House do it's job and provide some clarfication to the IRS.
 
I seem to recall that impeachment requires 2/3rds of the house in order to impeach someone.

The house would easily vote 2/3rds to impeach Obama.

Hell, many democrats would vote to impeach Obama because they don't have a choice. They're not going to destroy their political careers defending Obama on these scandals, which by the way are getting worse everyday.

These scandals are beyond the typical representatives pay grade and anyone who attempts to take Obama's side will go down with the ship - and they know that.
 
The republicans don't have the balls to impeach Obama despite the fact they
could have this clown out of office before the end of the year.

I suppose the better question to ask is: do we really want "crazy" Joe Biden to finish Obamy's term?

It has nothing to do with impeachment. It's about holding Politicians responsible for their crimes.
 
It has nothing to do with impeachment. It's about holding Politicians responsible for their crimes.

Impeachment is holding a politician responsible for their crime.
 
The only problem with impeaching Obama is that he will never get in front of a committee or take the stand, because he knows everything he says is bull**** and he has no desire to get himself caught up in a perjury scandal next.

I'd give my left nut to see him on the stand tho. He's the type that would answer blunt questions in riddles.
 
The republicans don't have the balls to impeach Obama despite the fact they could have this clown out of office before the end of the year.

I suppose the better question to ask is: do we really want "crazy" Joe Biden to finish Obamy's term?
Could you please explain how this is even remotely pssible? :roll:
 
Impeachment isn't going to happen, but damaging the Democratic platform as a sham and corrupt is a good idea. Damage Hillary as inept is worth pursuing. She's a peacenik who couldn't pull the trigger and people got killed. Not someone we need in the WH. Do you want a corrupt IRS managing Obamacare?
 
Impeachment isn't going to happen, but damaging the Democratic platform as a sham and corrupt is a good idea. Damage Hillary as inept is worth pursuing. She's a peacenik who couldn't pull the trigger and people got killed. Not someone we need in the WH. Do you want a corrupt IRS managing Obamacare?

Do you want a government that thinks it has the right to ask you what you pray?
 
But thats just it, we don't know that, at least yet. I know how ridiculously unfair it sounds when the criteria for the BOLO is so obviously biased. That's unacceptable. But as far as we know, it was just optics. What counts are results. Were conservative groups actually targeted at a higher rate? And if they were, why?

So far, the only group that we know was that denied 501(c)(4) status was a progressive group who didn't campaign or engage in the political process. Instead their mission was to educate women so that they could run for office.

The IRS rightly rejected them. Thats not a predominantly social welfare mission.

Targeting of conservative vs liberal was something like 97 to 3. I'm sure there will be readily available data.:cool:
 
That's BS, if the Republicans think they're being targeted, its only because they what the identity of their political donors to be unknown to the public. Corporation X doesn't the public to know they are contributing for or against candidate Y. Also today it is very possible these so-called super PAC are accepting donations from off shore entities.

Scrutiny of Political Nonprofits Sets Off Claim of Harassment

A debate about the proper way to finance advocacy belongs elsewhere. Under the law of the land the conservatives were victims of discrimination.:mrgreen:
 
A debate about the proper way to finance advocacy belongs elsewhere. Under the law of the land the conservatives were victims of discrimination.:mrgreen:

Really?

Scrutiny of Political Nonprofits Sets Off Claim of Harassment

The agency plans this year to press existing nonprofits like American Crossroads, on the Republican side, and Priorities USA, on the Democratic side, to justify their tax-protected status as “social welfare” organizations, a status that many tax professionals believe is being badly abused.​
 
Really?

Scrutiny of Political Nonprofits Sets Off Claim of Harassment

The agency plans this year to press existing nonprofits like American Crossroads, on the Republican side, and Priorities USA, on the Democratic side, to justify their tax-protected status as “social welfare” organizations, a status that many tax professionals believe is being badly abused.​

That's fine and probably something that should be done, but it's off-topic.:cool:
 
Really?

Scrutiny of Political Nonprofits Sets Off Claim of Harassment

The agency plans this year to press existing nonprofits like American Crossroads, on the Republican side, and Priorities USA, on the Democratic side, to justify their tax-protected status as “social welfare” organizations, a status that many tax professionals believe is being badly abused.​

So going by this NYT article you feel that everyone was treated equally and fairly?
 
Targeted 97 to 3.

The conservatives are using the nonprofit code more that the liberals. Lets have sunlight so we know who is donating to political campaigns?
 
Really?

Scrutiny of Political Nonprofits Sets Off Claim of Harassment

The agency plans this year to press existing nonprofits like American Crossroads, on the Republican side, and Priorities USA, on the Democratic side, to justify their tax-protected status as “social welfare” organizations, a status that many tax professionals believe is being badly abused.​

LOL !!!

Oh man, Mark Levin, who's the President of the Landmark Legal Foundation is explaining how his Law Suite Against the IRS brought out whistle blowers who worked at the IRS who are going to testify that the IRS attempted to destroy third party request from Democrats under Clinton and Obama that wanted these Conservative groups checked out.

attempted, is the key word as apparently enough survived to bury the Democrats happy asses.

Time for some Democrats to go to prison and the entire corrupt party to be tagged as a thug organization.
 
Back
Top Bottom