• 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!

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

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

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.

I'm familiar with the tax issues, I probably didn't word it well.

Long before Citizen United, "social" groups were infiltrated and transformed into beds of political activism. ACORN was a great example. Should they all be reclasified? I think I've answered that.

However, again, when Charitable Trusts become political, which they have, the more important fix comes to light. IMO one could reclasify all the groups, but leave the Trusts alone? That would be missing the objective completely.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

I'm familiar with the tax issues, I probably didn't word it well.

Long before Citizen United, "social" groups were infiltrated and transformed into beds of political activism. ACORN was a great example. Should they all be reclasified? I think I've answered that.

However, again, when Charitable Trusts become political, which they have, the more important fix comes to light. IMO one could reclasify all the groups, but leave the Trusts alone? That would be missing the objective completely.

Yeah, that's something that we both agree on. I don't see a problem with an organization having both a 501c3 arm and a 527 arm. But the public has a right to know where the money comes from in political speech and lobbing.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

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

This is corruption, not bureacracy.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Yeah, that's something that we both agree on. I don't see a problem with an organization having both a 501c3 arm and a 527 arm. But the public has a right to know where the money comes from in political speech and lobbing.

You don't have a right to know who I donate money too.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

You don't have a right to know who I donate money too.

so you think you should be able to bribe a politician to abuse his authority in your favor and that said bribery should be required to remain concealed
amazing
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

It's called "Legal Campaign Financing", the give that keeps on giving "dark money" from Citizens United .
so you think you should be able to bribe a politician to abuse his authority in your favor and that said bribery should be required to remain concealed
amazing
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

so you think you should be able to bribe a politician to abuse his authority in your favor and that said bribery should be required to remain concealed
amazing

What's amazing, is that you don't know the difference between bribing an elected official and making a donation to a political campaign.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

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.

No, I was answering your question.

I don't see how anyone can be in favor of more dark money in politics.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

You don't have a right to know who I donate money too.

I absolutely have a right to know which elected officials you are donating to.

Because they're the ones who make the rules, there's a huge conflict of interest that exists whenever you donate money to a campaign or engage in any electioneering. Disclosure is necessary to prevent corruption. If a random individual spends a few million dollars getting Joe Schmo elected, and then Joe Schmo earmarks a billiion dollar development; is it payback or good policy?

I shouldn't know if you donate money to the NRA. But the public has a right to know when you donate money to electioneering.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

I absolutely have a right to know which elected officials you are donating to.

Because they're the ones who make the rules, there's a huge conflict of interest that exists whenever you donate money to a campaign or engage in any electioneering. Disclosure is necessary to prevent corruption. If a random individual spends a few million dollars getting Joe Schmo elected, and then Joe Schmo earmarks a billiion dollar development; is it payback or good policy?

I shouldn't know if you donate money to the NRA. But the public has a right to know when you donate money to electioneering.

Where is this right written down? I see the one about me being free from govt searches (privacy), but I dont see one about you having a right to know who I support for office.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Where is this right written down? I see the one about me being free from govt searches (privacy), but I dont see one about you having a right to know who I support for office.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-559.pdf

Scalia concurring in judgement:
Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my par t , I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously (McIntyre) and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.​

Even Scalia argues that you do not have a right to anonymous political speech. Moreover, allowing such speech is hazardous to our democracy. Since you do not have a right to donate anonymously, and by current statute, donations to organizations allowed to make political speech must disclose their donors, you do not have a right to donate to political campaigns anonymously. Ergo, the public has a right to know who contributes to whom.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Oops! No wonder Lois took the 5th. She's genuinely worried about her ass going to prison.




I predict that she won't go to prison.

Do you want to make a large bet on this?
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

I absolutely have a right to know which elected officials you are donating to.

Because they're the ones who make the rules, there's a huge conflict of interest that exists whenever you donate money to a campaign or engage in any electioneering. Disclosure is necessary to prevent corruption. If a random individual spends a few million dollars getting Joe Schmo elected, and then Joe Schmo earmarks a billiion dollar development; is it payback or good policy?

I shouldn't know if you donate money to the NRA. But the public has a right to know when you donate money to electioneering.

You don't have a right to know who donate money to for the same reason you don't have a right to know who I vote for; it would make me subject to intimidation.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

I predict that she won't go to prison.

Do you want to make a large bet on this?

Oh, I know she won't go to prison! That's what makes this so outrageous.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

You don't have a right to know who donate money to for the same reason you don't have a right to know who I vote for; it would make me subject to intimidation.

While I appreciate the sentiment, this has been argued in front of the Supreme Court and has lost, repeatedly. The courts have found that the government has a compelling reason to force disclosure because the absence of disclosure promotes corruption.

You can go here and look up contributions by anyone to anyone. Donor Lookup: Find Individual and Soft Money Contributors | OpenSecrets If you or I wish to make an impact politically, we give to a campaign and our donations are public. But if you have a few million dollars to give, you can anonymously fund an 501c4 to skirt the law and avoid disclosure. One rule for normal people, a different rule for the super wealthy.... M'erica.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-559.pdf

Scalia concurring in judgement:
Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my par t , I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously (McIntyre) and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.​

Even Scalia argues that you do not have a right to anonymous political speech. Moreover, allowing such speech is hazardous to our democracy. Since you do not have a right to donate anonymously, and by current statute, donations to organizations allowed to make political speech must disclose their donors, you do not have a right to donate to political campaigns anonymously. Ergo, the public has a right to know who contributes to whom.

Except you didnt answer the question. If you think you have some legal right to publicize my private speech without my consent, just show me where that right is in the constitution.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

While I appreciate the sentiment, this has been argued in front of the Supreme Court and has lost, repeatedly. The courts have found that the government has a compelling reason to force disclosure because the absence of disclosure promotes corruption.

You can go here and look up contributions by anyone to anyone. Donor Lookup: Find Individual and Soft Money Contributors | OpenSecrets If you or I wish to make an impact politically, we give to a campaign and our donations are public. But if you have a few million dollars to give, you can anonymously fund an 501c4 to skirt the law and avoid disclosure. One rule for normal people, a different rule for the super wealthy.... M'erica.

Thats irrelevant. Courts dont make laws. They decide cases.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Thats irrelevant. Courts dont make laws. They decide cases.

The law says that disclosure is mandatory for electioneering. Courts have confirmed that congress has this power.

So yes, you have the freedom to run campaign adds. And we have the freedom to know who's running them.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

The law says that disclosure is mandatory for electioneering. Courts have confirmed that congress has this power.

So yes, you have the freedom to run campaign adds. And we have the freedom to know who's running them.

The constitution is supreme to federal laws, and it says you dont. You have yet to show me any language in the constitution that give you this right to know who I support.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

The constitution is supreme to federal laws, and it says you dont. You have yet to show me any language in the constitution that give you this right to know who I support.
So the laws that mandate it are unconstitutional?

I'm not saying that disclosure is a constitutional mandate. I'm saying that disclosure is the law and the constitution provides the power to mandate disclosure of donors to funds used for electioneering.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

So the laws that mandate it are unconstitutional?

I'm not saying that disclosure is a constitutional mandate. I'm saying that disclosure is the law and the constitution provides the power to mandate disclosure of donors to funds used for electioneering.

What you said was you have a RIGHT to know. And Im saying I have a right to privacy. So far only one of us can point that out in the bill of rights.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

Oh, I know she won't go to prison! That's what makes this so outrageous.




I also find it outrageous that so many people waste so much time on this bull**** that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

What you said was you have a RIGHT to know. And Im saying I have a right to privacy. So far only one of us can point that out in the bill of rights.

I have a right to know because the law says so, and the Supreme Court agrees. That's kind of compelling.

And really, why are you arguing that multi-billionaires should be able to run campaign adds saying whatever without having to admit who funded it? How can anyone complain about how R's and D's are the same, and we need a third party, and at the same time be FOR anonymous dark money running campaigns?
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

I have a right to know because the law says so, and the Supreme Court agrees. That's kind of compelling.

And really, why are you arguing that multi-billionaires should be able to run campaign adds saying whatever without having to admit who funded it? How can anyone complain about how R's and D's are the same, and we need a third party, and at the same time be FOR anonymous dark money running campaigns?

Because some of beleive in liberty.
 
Re: Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict n

What's amazing, is that you don't know the difference between bribing an elected official and making a donation to a political campaign.
please share with us the distinction between the two
 
Back
Top Bottom