Dem Congressman takes apart tea party whiner

[paperview]

If this had happened to any 501c4 lefty groups under Bush

It happened. NAACP, for starters.

2. This group is applying for CHARITY status. 501c3. CHARITY.

Whole set of diff. rules that apply -- most significant, no political affiliations with candidates / political campaign, etc...

All NAACP Units have been designated 501(c)(4) organizations

Only the National Office is a 501(c)(3) organization

Cincinnati Black Blog: NAACP National: Cincinnati Branch is 501(c)(4)

??

True the Vote wants 501 c 3 status.

Three. Not c 4.

True the Vote wants to be treated as a CHARITY.

They want people who contribute to them to able to write off their contributions as tax deductible.

I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) charitable organizations are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office (hereafter referred to as political campaign intervention).

Here's an example of their "non-partisanship."

"Verify the Recall" May Have Been Political Intervention

The group's participation in the Wisconsin "Verify the Recall" effort is one example.
501(c)(3) charities may conduct activities like voter registration or get-out-the-vote drives, as long as there is no bias against a particular candidate.

But True the Vote's rhetoric surrounding its recall petition "verification" activities made it clear which side they supported. Blog posts, for example, suggested "massive fraud" by Democrats in the recall petition effort and exclaimed that "we should not believe the claims of union-supporters and anti-Walker operatives who say that they collected more than one million signatures on petitions to recall Governor Scott Walker."

And the True the Vote / Verify the Recall findings were, at best, extremely sloppy: True the Vote alleged that recall proponents failed to collect enough valid signatures, but even a cursory review of their analysis showed that many of the rejected signatures were entirely legitimate -- perhaps indicating the true goal was to discredit the recall effort rather than "verify" anything.


After recall petitions were collected and turned in, the Walker campaign refused to challenge any signatures, and instead asked the state elections board to accept challenges from Verify the Recall (which the board rejected, since there is no basis in state law for accepting such third-party challenges).


True the Vote's position on the recall effort, and the Walker campaign essentially accepting their work as an in-kind campaign contribution, raise legitimate questions about whether this is appropriate activity for a non-partisan, non-political charity.

And True the Vote appeared to recognize this and tried distancing itself from the Verify the Recall effort.

"True the Vote," the Victim? Voter Vigilante Group Says IRS Targeted Its "Verify the Recall" Effort in Wisconsin | PR Watch

You think perhaps shit like this might lead to greater scrutiny for an org that wants to be treated as a tax deductible CHARITY?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

It has already been established that the IRS targeted conservative groups. That's not the debate. The debate is rather the IRS targeted conservative groups because of a political agenda or what Obama calls "bonehead decisions". To find out the answer to this we must investigate. Those who don't believe in investigating an already established occurrence (targeting conservative groups) to find the REASONS of the occurrence have saturated their natural born curiosity and an analytical thought process with a hyper- partisan progressive rationalization.
It's the same hyper-partisan progressive rationalization that allows a Secretary Of State to say ,"What does it matter..." when asked who killed four Americans in Benghazi.
It's the same hyper-partisan progressive rationalization that allows an American president tell people they can keep their doctor and healthcare plan when he knows otherwise.
There are of course many examples of this hyper-partisan progressive rationalization emanating from this White House. Wouldn't it be nice if we got accountability, transparency and unbroken promises instead?

 

[paperview]

True The Vote Forged Signatures To Get Observers At Ohio Polls

The FCBOE met today and determined that True the Vote had likely falsified the forms submitted for general election observers.

The new observer forms, filed over the past few days by True the Vote representative (and Hilliard Tea Party Member) Jan Loar, used candidate signatures copied from a previous set of forms filed in early October.


All but one (Scott Rupert, an independent for U.S. Senate) of the six candidates whose names appeared on the original form had withdrawn permission to use their signatures prior to the submission of today’s forms. During the BOE meeting Candidate Terri Jamison spoke up to say her name was “forged” on the latest round of forms.


The form for appointing observers reads ‘election falsification is a 5th degree felony’. Election officials have confirmed that there will be a post-election investigation of True the Vote.


The forms have been rejected unanimously by all members (Rs and Ds) on the board. True the Vote observers will not be allowed in Franklin County polling locations tomorrow. Poll monitoring organizations expect they may still be stationed outside of polling locations.


Board member Zachary Manifold told us he was ”amazed that a group that goes to such extreme lengths to claim voting fraud in Ohio would knowingly forge or misuse signatures to try to gain access to Franklin County polling locations.”

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lois Lerner approved exemption for Obama brother's 'charity' | The Daily Caller

Tax-exempt Obama Foundation doesn't exist at listed address | The Daily Caller

Lois lerner approved this tax free within a month while all of this was going on...........According to these articles.....................

Address shown as a PO Box.................

Amazing isn't it.

The Daily Caller is a politically conservative[1][2] news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C., United States. Founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative[3][4] political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, The Daily Caller launched on January 11, 2010. In late 2012, it was reported that the site had quadrupled its page view and total audience and had become profitable without ever buying an advertisement for itself.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller

Maybe another source might confirm the allegations made by Tucker Carlson. Reading the link it was obvious how the use of language was geared to provide red meant to the right wing base. It's no wonder you hold the beliefs you do.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Senator Bob Menendez prostitution controversy and FBI investigation

From: The Daily Caller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In an article titled "Women: Sen. Bob Menendez paid us for sex in the Dominican Republic",[20] The Daily Caller reported that New Jersey senator Bob Menendez had allegedly paid two prostitutes to have sex with him during a stay at a Dominican Republic resort. The report included videotaped interviews with the women. The allegation came five days before the 2012 New Jersey senate election. News organizations such as the New York Times, ABC News and the New York Post declined to publish the allegations, viewing them as unsubstantiated and lacking credibility.[21][22][23]

The FBI investigated the allegations and found no evidence to substantiate them.[24][25] Subsequently, one of the women who accused Menendez stated that she had been paid to falsely implicate the senator, whom she had never met.[21][25] Menendez's office described the allegations as "manufactured" by a right-wing blog as a politically motivated smear.[26] On March 18, police in the Dominican Republic announced that three women had acknowledged they had been paid $300–425 each to lie about having had sex with Menendez.[27]

According to a spokesperson in the Dominican government, the women in question had been paid to make the false claims in question by someone who identified himself as a Daily Caller employee. The Daily Caller issued a statement denying the claims.[28] The Daily Caller denied having paid any individuals for any participation in the stories about Menendez, and detailed the discrepancies between the new reports from Dominican authorities and the original interviews the outlet had conducted.[29][30][31] The Washington Post was extremely critical of the Caller's "eagerness to publish completely unsubstantiated allegations", concluding that the Caller was "ducking accountability".[32][33][34]

 

[Dot Com]

goes to show that eXtreme rw groups will brazenly claim innocence when caught breaking the law. Sad

 

[emilynghiem]

I applaud Congressman Issa and Jordan’s request of the Internal Revenue Service to withdraw a proposed regulation limiting political speech by nonprofit organizations. That action should be taken quickly and without fail, because if allowed to pass, these new regulations will effectively codify into law the very practices that bring me here today. If those regulations pass, non-profit organizations across the country will be destroyed. No American, regardless of their political affiliation, should support the silencing of political speech.

Funny that Issa would support BREAKING THE LAW. Well he is a criminal after all.

The IRS regulation and Federal Law do not comport. And the regulation needs to be changed.

Non profits are not for political speech.

i thought it was a 501c4 which is for political fundraising

 

[emilynghiem]

OSHA shows up at a business ONLY at the request of an employee OF that business, and it has to be a currently employed person AT the business.

Yeah, and they don't have any Obama voters working there ether.

Oh, and the administration never, ever breaks the law.

There's been no findings of law breaking.

And that's with multiple very serious investigations making very serious accusations.

hi sallow
i thought there was a conflict of interest
where barbara bosserman appointed to head the investigation
donated the maximum amount to obamas campaign
and selectively omitted to interview Englebrecht, wouldnt that help explain why not a smidgeon of corruption was found

wouldnt that be a violation of the code of ethics for govt service
to refrain from any business that might interfere with the
conscientious duties of ones office

"V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.

"VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Governmental employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

"VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties."

 

[emilynghiem]

Here's the OSHA report: https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=525458.015

10 serious violations.

i'm happy to run this report past an OSHA consultant who routinely negotiates
down the fines for companies especially first reports as long as these are corrected

usually the govt is supportive of small businesses willing to correct first time notices

only if there is an injury or deadly accident, you can't negotiate that
but things like protective gear and hazcom can be remedied easily
there were no incidents that triggered this inspection so there is room to negotiate

if you try to make a political statement and refuse to comply with authority
they may impose the top fine to put you in your place
it looks like this couple fully complied and may not have tried to negotiate

here it seems there was more political adversity
in trying to find fault with this couple, going after all their
points of contact using every agency available to inspect them

are you saying that is coincidence or normal

and the questions were clearly overburdensome and overreaching
who the hell asks their future plans to speak and meet over the next year
seems suspiciously excessive to me

but i'm just a reasonable person who worked for an OSHA consultant
what do i know about excess probing or targeting that seems out of line
and i'm a democrat so i should be jumping for joy
not siding with evil republicans claiming victimhood for no reason at all

 

[paperview]

I applaud Congressman Issa and Jordan’s request of the Internal Revenue Service to withdraw a proposed regulation limiting political speech by nonprofit organizations. That action should be taken quickly and without fail, because if allowed to pass, these new regulations will effectively codify into law the very practices that bring me here today. If those regulations pass, non-profit organizations across the country will be destroyed. No American, regardless of their political affiliation, should support the silencing of political speech.

Funny that Issa would support BREAKING THE LAW. Well he is a criminal after all.

The IRS regulation and Federal Law do not comport. And the regulation needs to be changed.

Non profits are not for political speech.

i thought it was a 501c4 which is for political fundraising

The group in question here was applying for a 501c3 -- A CHARITY-type organization -- and most definitely not for electioneering and political fundraising.

According to the Internal Revenue Service Code, 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations are nonprofit organizations that are exempt from paying federal income tax. 501(c)(3) organizations are either a public charity, private foundation or private operating foundation with open membership whereas 501(c)(4) organizations are civic leagues or associations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare or local associations of employees with limited membership.


When it comes to lobbying and political activity, 501(c)(3) organizations can appeal directly to legislative bodies and representatives and may support issue-based legislation. However, they must notify the IRS of their intent to lobby by filing form 5768, which formally informs the federal government that one has elected to use the expenditure test to have the organization's lobbying activity measured. Under this test, lobbying capacity is typically limited to spending less than 5 to 20% of the organizational budget on lobbying activities, depending on the size of your organization.



501(c)(4) organizations can engage in unlimited lobbying so long as it pertains to the organization's mission. 501(c)(3) organizations are not permitted to engage in political activity, endorse or oppose political candidates, or donate money or time to political campaigns, but 501(c)(4) organizations can do all of the above.

The difference between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations | NJ.com

Part of the problem with the regulations and some of the IRS confusion / fuckupedness - is that 501 c4's cannot engage in political activities, as their primary purpose

This site here has an even better breakdown:
501(c)4 vs 501(c)3 vs 527

"One thing that is abundantly clear after reading the recently released redacted IRS audit: almost no one can confidently explain, let alone define, the specifics of the 501(c)4 designation."

 

[paperview]

it looks like this couple fully complied and may not have tried to negotiate

They negotiated it down by more than a third.

here it seems there was more political adversity
in trying to find fault with this couple, going after all their
points of contact using every agency available to inspect them

*sigh* Keep reading the thread. Please.

 

[paperview]

The above article link really gives a good explanation for some of what went down in this whole IRS mess...

I'm adding more here, as I think it is really helpful:

<snip>
While the 501(c)4 existed for years in this hybrid state, it appears that for most of its history, few organizations exploited the designation’s political potential. That all changed in the lead up to, and aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizen‘s United ruling.

By the time of the ruling, many major political players, including Karl Rove, had formed 501(c)4 organizations, and 501(c)4 groups were beginning to take over a role that 527&#8242;s (such as 2004&#8242;s Swift Vets and POWs for Truth) had played in previous elections. Citizens United firmly established that any legislative attempts to regulate donations to 501(c)4&#8242;s—either by imposing limits OR forcing the publishing of donor information—were violations of First Amendment rights.

Critics of the decision continue to point out that it in essence endorsed using 501(c)4&#8242;s as quasi-political organizations to circumvent federal and state election regulations. Groups who would have originally filled for 527 status could now opt instead for the freedom of 501(c)4&#8242;s. Of course, in order to do so, those groups would have to “massage” their applications to ensure that it did not appear that they were a fundamentally “political” group.

The following chart, included in the IRS audit, demonstrates that in the wake of Citizens United, there was a marked increase (~40% a year) in the number of 501(c)4 applications being submitted to the IRS.

Let me note that this period—2010 to 2012—also saw the maturation of the Tea Party.

And research into Tea Party communities shows that the accepted wisdom was that new Tea Party chapters should immediately file as 501(c)4 organizations.

Ironically, of the three organization tax designations in question—501(c)3, 501(c)4, and 527—only 501(c)4 allows for a group to self-declare their status without first filing with the IRS. The advantage to filing is official recognition, which is only necessary if an outsider challenges the group’s 501(c)4 status. Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, the only thing required to operate as a 501(c)4 is to say that you‘re a 501(c)4.

501(c)4 vs 501(c)3 vs 527

 

[Stephanie]

This is what he was calling for when he said this: and you people cheer him unleashing this government on the people in this country...

[ame=http://youtu.be/Tt2yGzHfy7s]Obama Civilian Security - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JoeB131]

the GOP cherry-picked witness, unsurprisingly had Jay Seculow as council lol. Could they be any more transparent?

4 min clip:

C-SPAN | Democrat owns TeaParty vote suppressor (sp.)

This woman has been paraded by the Teabaggers for months as someone who was a "victim" of government retaliation, when if fact, OSHA found pretty serious violations at her shop.

 

[JoeB131]

Love it! Dumbass teabagger probably didn't know what hit him.

He was a she, and she said that OSHA showed up without warning and started interviewing employees without management's knowledge, looking for dirt on a woman who applied for a tax-free status in another organization. One government agency after another showing up to look for violations just because she was a conservative. She never had this problem before over her 20 plus years in operation up until the last 3 years. Looks like a clear case of political harassment to me.

The dickwad (Democrat) asking the questions wouldn't allow her to answer the questions. It was total Bullshit. Every one of the issues the representative mentioned could all be corrected by PPE, Personal Protective Equipment. This is the most common form of safety involved in a work environment.

OSHA shows up at a business ONLY at the request of an employee OF that business, and it has to be a currently employed person AT the business.

Well, not exactly, I worked at companies where OSHA popped by when ex-employees ratted them out.

 

[JoeB131]

Love it! Dumbass teabagger probably didn't know what hit him.

He was a she, and she said that OSHA showed up without warning and started interviewing employees without management's knowledge, looking for dirt on a woman who applied for a tax-free status in another organization. One government agency after another showing up to look for violations just because she was a conservative. She never had this problem before over her 20 plus years in operation up until the last 3 years. Looks like a clear case of political harassment to me.

The dickwad (Democrat) asking the questions wouldn't allow her to answer the questions. It was total Bullshit. Every one of the issues the representative mentioned could all be corrected by PPE, Personal Protective Equipment. This is the most common form of safety involved in a work environment.

OSHA doesn't have to get management's permission to interview employees and frankly, it wouldn't be effective at its job if it didn't.

Yes, all the problems could have been corrected with PPE, so why wasn't she providing the PPE and why wasn't she enforcing the rules. Her own testimony was that she nor her husband were on site when OSHA visited.

Here's the thing. I deal with small manufacturers all the time as a buyer. I see a lot more bad shops than I see good shops.

What is probably more likely, she pissed off an employee and the employee dropped a dime on her to OSHA.

 

[paperview]

The "she said that OSHA showed up without warning" is really, really a stupid line.

The whole point is to show up without warning. Duh.

In fact - it is against the law to give warning.

 

[JoeB131]

To be fair, though, there really is nothing scarier than a visit by OSHA.

"Nobody ever Expects the Occupational Safety and Health Adminstration!"

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Some of these arguments against Engelbrecht might make some sense if it weren't for the fact that it wasn't just Osha that investigated Engelbrecht but also the FBI, IRS, ATF.

 

[paperview]

Some of these arguments against Engelbrecht might make some sense if it weren't for the fact that it wasn't just Osha that investigated Engelbrecht but also the FBI, IRS, ATF.

Let's get this straight...this is a quick run down of the Catherine Engelbrecht True the Vote fiasco.

OSHA visited them only once in 20 years, found serious violations at their machine shop, and even allowed them to negotiate down the fine.
The shop was visited because it was "part of an OSHA initiative to inspect fabricated metal products manufacturers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico." Fact checking Ron Johnson 'victim' Catherine Engelbrecht's OSHA claims :

FBI - Called her, in 2010 --- regarding a suspected domestic terrorist at one of their King Street Patriots meetings. 2010. No FBI investigation on them. An inquiry. Even SHE admits that. And it had to do with her King Street Patriots arm, not True the Vote.

"Five months after she filed for 501(c)(4) status for KSP, Engelbrecht says the FBI Domestic Terrorism Unit called her about one of the people who had attended a KSP group meeting. Five months after that, the FBI called her again to ask &#8220;how we were doing?&#8221; A month later on June 2011, she received another FBI general inquiry, which was followed by two more in November and December."
Local Tea Party founder claims she was targeted by several federal agencies | Fox News

It should be noted as well -- just before this a mysterious fire in a warehouse destroyed all of the voting equipment and machines in Houston, for 800 polling places - just before the election. Whether that had anything to do with it, not known.

BATF: In 2009 the company secured a federal license to manufacture gun parts. Yes, a Class 7 Federal Firearms License.
An ATF spokesperson told Local 2 since the business received its license in 2009, the Bureau needed to conduct an inspection within a three year period, as is routine for other similar businesses.

TCEQ: (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality also inspected) Engelbrecht Manufacturing after officials received an anonymous complaint."The TCEQ received a complaint against Engelbrecht Manufacturing in October, alleging improper handling of metal shavings. TCEQ investigated, and we are requiring the company to obtain required storm water permits and take other actions to prevent discharge of industrial solid waste. "The TCEQ can state without reservation that we were not directed to investigate Engelbrecht Manufacturing by any federal agency or any other agency." A database maintained by the TCEQ shows this was the only inspection of Engelbrecht Manufacturing since it began operations." Houston-area couple questions federal, state scrutiny | News - Home

Considering she lied about the OSHA findings (claimed they were not serious) -- and part of her objection was they visited her unannounced (duh, the point of an OSHA audit is to come unannounced) she lied about the AFT (their federal license to manufacture gun parts required a visit!), she lied about the TCEQ (made it sound like it was not resultant due to a complaint of their handling of metal shavings and required them to take care of industrial waste) -- She lied about the non partisan nature of her CHARITY organization (gave $$ to RNC offshoot) and lied about True the Vote being in favor of Early Voting (see the testimony from the most recent hearing) -- how do we know Catherine Engelbrecht isn't lying about the IRS personal audits she says she is subject to? It could have been just a phone call about a number. It could have been she was actually cheating the government. She's been proven to be less than honest.

But we'll never know. She won't tell us, and the IRS can't say.

We CAN say -- the IRS was absolutely doing their duty to scrutinize this group that was seeking CHARITY (501c3) status.