- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,957
- Reaction score
- 19,695
- Location
- Rocky Mtn. High
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
So you think that targeting groups for IRS scrutiny based on ideological leanings is an appropriate way to conduct the government, and that agencies like the IRS are above congressional oversight?
They were targeted for IRS scrutiny based on being highly suspect as qualifying for 501(c)(4) status. 501(c)(4) groups are meant to be social welfare groups, not political groups. It should be pretty easy to see that Tea Party groups would be suspect as to whether they were more political than social welfare. Sorry, but what we have here is nothing more than a logical discriminator used by the IRS to separate highly suspect applications from slam dunks. Hopefully you endorse your government working smart.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/13/us-usa-tax-irs-criteria-idUSBRE94C03N20130513
Wait a minute....That isn't what your own article provided said....It said...
"501(c)4
May engage in political activities, as long as these activities do not become their primary purpose
CAN Endorse Candidates..."
So, you even seem to be mistaken here...
Wrong. As I showed above they are allowed to engage in political activity as long as that is not their primary purpose. What made this controversial is that Obama supporter within the IRS made it their mission during a campaign season to hinder these groups rights, hoping to effect the outcome of an election. That sir is criminal.
Actually, you are not fully correct here. The actual law and original regs were that 501(c)(4) organizations are to operate EXCLUSIVELY as social welfare organizations. But, there is a difference between the law, the regs and how the regs are applied. The regulatory authorities, in the case the IRS, write the regulations which act to elaborate on the law. Then, over time these regs are refined with application, precedent and case law. In this case, the IRS chose, over time, to grant some political advocacy latitude to social welfare organizations. I argued the original intent is that these organizations are exclusively social welfare; over time, the IRS defined this to allow for some political participation. My point is that application migrated from original intent.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicm95.pdf
Prove it...The IG report was inconclusive in that aspect.
Doesn't have to be, re read your own posted article.
It seems almost axiomatic that far more quasi-political groups were being formed in opposition to Obama and healthcare reform than were being formed because it was a good time to form liberal social welfare organizations.
Not familiar with what you mean by "tweeners"....
Sorry, a "tweener" is something that lies at or near the lines. It is somewhere between qualifying and not qualifying or as questionably qualifying between category "X" and "Y". As a matter of illustration, there is north and there is east, northeast is a tweener between north and east; north, north east would be more north than east, and if you had to chose north, north east would be north. Its not so easy to categorize northeast as either north or east without further scrutiny. By application, Tea Party groups have a political component and social welfare component. To qualify as a 501(c)(4), however, the group must be more social welfare than political. It requires closer scrutiny.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/u...s-tested-political-limits.html?pagewanted=all
What does the content of any particular groups prayers have to do with qualifying?
Public prayer for a particular political outcome would be political.
How many conservatives have the Sierra Club, or Green Peace donated to, or advocated for? If you truly believe this, it is either naive, or willingly dishonest. In either case, it was pointed out that liberal groups in the same time frame applying were rushed through, and in one case we know of retro active status was granted in less than a month.....So, yeah, this comparison is blown out of the water at this point.
I think you really missed the point here.... you don't have to be balanced in your candidate selection; you just need to be more social welfare than political. If you understood the mission of Sierra Club and Greenpeace, you would realize they are more social welfare than political. You can endorse the most wack-a-doo candidates for the right or the left, exclusively, but as long as political action is secondary, you are ok as a 501(c)(4).
Just wondering though, would you be so dismissive if hypothetically, Romney had won, and it was revealed that the IRS was doing this sort of thing during the campaign to progressive groups?
If, Romney had run AND the IRS was under one of his political hacks; perhaps. But, again, I do understand the IRS mission and understand how this can happen and be benign. The IRS was not under the leadership of an Obama hack, but a Bush appointee; moreover, given you do not need to actually apply for 501(c)(4) status, the idea of a conspiracy around this seems highly implausible.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf
Evangelicals in your eyes are the most egregious at violating that status? Maybe you have missed Rainbow PUSH, or Reverend Al, or even this guy....
We are digressing, but I am certain that you, like 99.9% of Americans only heard the sermon of Rev. Wright that Fox News wanted you to hear rather than his entire sermon, which was much more about how spiritually lost America has become.
Of course you would...Because the splinter you point out in my eye, ignores the log in your own.
I am no attorney, but I think Trey Gowdy was correct ....
If your no attorney, then what is your basis, other than wishful thinking, for thinking that?
Last edited: