Democrats Believe They Have The Right To Use The IRS To Attack Us

[bedowin62]

How does making them disclose who their donors are limit their free speech?

they were prevented from even forming until after the election

ur a loser; lying to himself

No, they could have formed before the election IF they filed as 527 groups, which was the appropriate code to file under.

They didn't do that, because they were trying to pull a fast one.

big talk; no proof or even a shred of evidence. only YOUR opinion that that is what they needed to do

 

[paperview]

How does making them disclose who their donors are limit their free speech?

they were prevented from even forming until after the election

ur a loser; lying to himself

No, they could have formed before the election IF they filed as 527 groups, which was the appropriate code to file under.

They didn't do that, because they were trying to pull a fast one.

Bedwetter lies. They formed.

501c4's self-declare. It's after they get checked out.

Ask for names of the groups that "didn't form."

Comon bedwetter, what were the names of these groups that "didn't form?"

 

[JoeB131]

prove they didnt want to; or refused to disclose who their donors were; any more than any other group or groups, to the extent that they freely give up this information

you're an idiot; lying to himself

i'm waiting.........................

The code they filed under was for "Social Welfare Agencies", not political groups. They were trying to defraud the IRS and the IRS called shennanigans on them.

The only reason why this is a "scandal" is because the average Faux News viewer probably struggles with his Schedule A deductions.

 

[eagle1462010]

Joe.........Joe...............Joe.................

You are trying to change the subject Joe............You asked what are we fighting for Joe............

We are fighting against the abuses of the IRS and Gov't Joe.............Clearly they have done so JOE..................

We are fighting against orgs like ACORN Joe.............Rotten Acorn Joe...........and now the new Acorn Joe...........called Enroll America Joe................

So you aren't going to answer the question, then?

Why are you fighting so hard for the right of rich people to buy influence?

It's a very simple question.

BS...........Why do you not condemn the head of the HHS for having fund raisers for Enroll America Joe..............which is a front for the DNC...........now using Obamacare funds to pay for the dang org..........

Conflict of interest Joe.............

Your original question has been answered...............Now you attempt to change the subject to Class Warfare because you don't want to Engage it what is going on with the HHS and Enroll America.............

Your side is going to get mud in your face on this subject just like Acorn.........and you know it because the same scumbags who did Acorn are now doing Enroll America..............

How about the Navigators telling applicants to Lie Joe..................

How about the DNC attacks in Virginia Joe on voter Registration as States are now using ERIC to try and clean up voter rolls............Joe...........

Stop moving the goal posts like you always do Joe..............

 

[paperview]

Here's an interesting (in retrospect) Fox Business News story -- from 2011, in regards to the MMFA story...

Where they unwittingly Foxsplain the troubles with non-profit status and how ...er, taxed the IRS is in manpower and trying to make sense of the dizzying rules:

Former White House Counsel to IRS: Pull Media Matters? Tax-Exempt Status | Fox Business

The IRS tries to be strict about nonprofit politicking.


But nonprofits often get away with questionable activity via tortured readings of an already tortured tax law.



Moreover, the IRS only has several thousand workers to cover an estimated 1.5 million nonprofits with $1.4 trillion in revenues and an estimated $4.3 trillion in assets, roughly the size of India.


That, along with having to annually match 230 million returns with 1.4 billion information documents, has turned many IRS service centers into neurotic paper factories that look like something out of an anxiety dream.

Also, tax returns come in a year or more after alleged abuses, Owens notes. So the IRS often has to "play catch up with abusive nonprofits."


And that means judgment calls through the years on letting taxpayers effectively subsidize questionable nonprofit activity, judgment calls which can lead to equivocation and quibbling.


"One can argue that most corporations don't pay taxes either," Owens says. "Like nonprofits, they're taking advantage of the code to not pay taxes. The tax code is full of incentives for anyone to arrange their affairs to not pay taxes."

Former White House Counsel to IRS: Pull Media Matters? Tax-Exempt Status | Fox Business

To add...(remember, that is from 2011 -- )

"With great difficulty, the IRS and the U.S. tax court have tried to erect bright lines around such subjectivity to avoid partisanship on both sides of the political aisle.

IRS officials and tax lawyers add that nonprofits who offer media criticism do not have to pay income taxes on their donations because they are supposed to serve the public, and not private, interests, in that they exist to educate the public about mistakes in the media.

Political activity or acting on behalf of partisan donors cannot comprise a substantial part of a nonprofit's activity, IRS spokesman Eric Smith says.

Joseph DeTrane, a nonprofit expert at Grant Thornton, agrees. "If political activity is the primary purpose of nonprofit, it risks losing its exempt status," he says."


Is anyone going to seriously make the case a "non profit" like Karl Rove's Crossroads dark money group, for example, was not primarily about political activity?

 

[bedowin62]

they were prevented from even forming until after the election

ur a loser; lying to himself

No, they could have formed before the election IF they filed as 527 groups, which was the appropriate code to file under.

They didn't do that, because they were trying to pull a fast one.

Bedwetter lies. They formed.

501c4's self-declare. It's after they get checked out.

Ask for names of the groups that "didn't form."

Comon bedwetter, what were the names of these groups that "didn't form?"

once again; miss link fails to prove her case when the central point is in question

you arent part of the investigation; you're a joke

 

[bedowin62]

prove they didnt want to; or refused to disclose who their donors were; any more than any other group or groups, to the extent that they freely give up this information

you're an idiot; lying to himself

i'm waiting.........................

The code they filed under was for "Social Welfare Agencies", not political groups. They were trying to defraud the IRS and the IRS called shennanigans on them.

The only reason why this is a "scandal" is because the average Faux News viewer probably struggles with his Schedule A deductions.

again; nothing


you're all talk

 

[paperview]

See?

BedOwin is only here to troll.

 

[bedowin62]

The NAACP has been around for 100 years and there's no real doubt that it's a "social welfare agency". It got its tax exemption a long time before SCOTUS fucked everything up and decided corporations were people.

Again, here's the thing. Nothing was stopping these Teabaggers from applying as 527 groups and getting a tax exemption. They just had to disclose who their donors were.

libs have no problem with the notion of Mafia-infested unions being people


idiots and hypocrites

Really? I ask because every "lib" I know would be more than happy to get all the large money donations out of our political system, unions and corporations alike.

How about this...only individual donations to candidates and they cannot exceed $1,000. Sound good?

really? then why hasnt it happened?

ur a joke; another left-wing moron lying to herself

 

[bedowin62]

In the immediate wake of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, conservative dark money interests drastically outspent their liberal counterparts; however, early into the 2014 election cycle, liberals have learned how to play ball — and they’re running up the score. The only problem: they don’t believe in the game.

Citizens United, decided in January 2010, opened the floodgates for “dark money” groups — 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) groups that are not legally obligated to disclose their donor rolls — to contribute to political campaigns. These groups, such as Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the liberal-leaning Patriot Majority USA, amass fortunes and spend their money influencing political elections across the nation, all while keeping their donor lists confidential. After the Supreme Court's decision, conservative interests demolished liberal groups in dark money spending; in the last two election cycles, conservative groups accounted for 88% and 85% of all dark money spending, respectively.

Although in a nascent stage, the 2014 election cycle is underway and liberal groups have substantially outspent conservative totals (they've spent more than conservative groups contributed at this point in the last three election cycles combined). So far, liberal contributions make up 70% of all dark money spent. Comparatively, at this point in the lead-up to the 2012 elections, liberals had contributed only 6% of the total dark money spent.

 

[bedowin62]

The influence of dark money can be seen just from looking at Virginia's statewide elections, and an analysis of outside spending evidences a parallel pattern. Last year, in the 2012 Senate race between Republican George Allen and Democrat Tim Kaine, 60% of a total of $52,408,125 outside money was spent by conservative organizations. However, in the last week of Virginia's 2013 gubernatorial race alone, Ken Cuccinnelli’s $278,598 from outside organizations simply could not compete with Terry McAuliffe’s $3,081,689. Liberal outside groups have mobilized and are finally ready to compete in big money elections.

While undoubtedly legal, this spike in dark money spending by liberal groups presents a seeming contradiction; despite the harsh rhetoric vilifying the Koch Brothers and other dark money financiers, these same ideologues are adopting their enemies’ strategy as their own.

Edited to insert source link: http://www.policymic.com/articles/7...tradicts-the-campaign-finance-reform-movement

 

[jillian]

Here's an interesting (in retrospect) Fox Business News story -- from 2011, in regards to the MMFA story...

Where they unwittingly Foxsplain the troubles with non-profit status and how ...er, taxed the IRS is in manpower and trying to make sense of the dizzying rules:

Former White House Counsel to IRS: Pull Media Matters? Tax-Exempt Status | Fox Business

The IRS tries to be strict about nonprofit politicking.


But nonprofits often get away with questionable activity via tortured readings of an already tortured tax law.



Moreover, the IRS only has several thousand workers to cover an estimated 1.5 million nonprofits with $1.4 trillion in revenues and an estimated $4.3 trillion in assets, roughly the size of India.


That, along with having to annually match 230 million returns with 1.4 billion information documents, has turned many IRS service centers into neurotic paper factories that look like something out of an anxiety dream.

Also, tax returns come in a year or more after alleged abuses, Owens notes. So the IRS often has to "play catch up with abusive nonprofits."


And that means judgment calls through the years on letting taxpayers effectively subsidize questionable nonprofit activity, judgment calls which can lead to equivocation and quibbling.


"One can argue that most corporations don't pay taxes either," Owens says. "Like nonprofits, they're taking advantage of the code to not pay taxes. The tax code is full of incentives for anyone to arrange their affairs to not pay taxes."

Former White House Counsel to IRS: Pull Media Matters? Tax-Exempt Status | Fox Business

To add...(remember, that is from 2011 -- )

"With great difficulty, the IRS and the U.S. tax court have tried to erect bright lines around such subjectivity to avoid partisanship on both sides of the political aisle.

IRS officials and tax lawyers add that nonprofits who offer media criticism do not have to pay income taxes on their donations because they are supposed to serve the public, and not private, interests, in that they exist to educate the public about mistakes in the media.

Political activity or acting on behalf of partisan donors cannot comprise a substantial part of a nonprofit's activity, IRS spokesman Eric Smith says.

Joseph DeTrane, a nonprofit expert at Grant Thornton, agrees. "If political activity is the primary purpose of nonprofit, it risks losing its exempt status," he says."


Is anyone going to seriously make the case a "non profit" like Karl Rove's Crossroads dark money group, for example, was not primarily about political activity?

the actual law says there can't be ANY political activity for the group to be tax exempt. why the IRS muddied the waters by creating a regulation that wasn't reflective of the law is beyond me.

what they need to do is make the reg mirror the law.

poof... no more problem.

 

[bedowin62]

One clear example is Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who likened Citizens United to the Dred Scott decision which denied African Americans the right to sue in federal court. Despite his rhetoric, Markey received nearly $800,000 in dark money support from The League of Conservation Voters during his 2013 special Senate race.

The Fund for the Republic is another perpetrator of this hypocrisy. This organization, backed by the progressive-leaning Democracy Alliance intends to end “crony Democracy” and “to combat the flood of big money into American politics”… and has raised $40 million of dark money. While it is logical that liberal groups would attempt to compete with conservatives' fundraising prowess, it is hypocritical for them to do so using the same methods they have denounced.

 

[bedowin62]

With only months before SCOTUS rules on McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (which questions the constitutionality of aggregate contribution limits), campaign finance rules may undergo another great change, potentially incentivizing individuals away from dark money groups by allowing them to contribute to as many campaigns as they like. In light of this event, only time will tell if the status quo system will be in tact for next year’s midterm elections.

Although we are still at the beginning of the 2014 election cycle, the increasing proclivity for dark money spending by liberal organizations presents a great conflict between their ideals and strategies; unfortunately for these groups, their hypocritical actions undermine their arguments.

 

[jillian]

libs have no problem with the notion of Mafia-infested unions being people


idiots and hypocrites

Really? I ask because every "lib" I know would be more than happy to get all the large money donations out of our political system, unions and corporations alike.

How about this...only individual donations to candidates and they cannot exceed $1,000. Sound good?

really? then why hasnt it happened?

ur a joke; another left-wing moron lying to herself

it hasn't happened because your rightwingnuts on the court decided that corporations are people.

so who's the joke?

you need to get your information straight.....

and stop running around tossing out insults at people more knowledgeable than you are.

 

[bedowin62]

Really? I ask because every "lib" I know would be more than happy to get all the large money donations out of our political system, unions and corporations alike.

How about this...only individual donations to candidates and they cannot exceed $1,000. Sound good?

really? then why hasnt it happened?

ur a joke; another left-wing moron lying to herself

it hasn't happened because your rightwingnuts on the court decided that corporations are people.

so who's the joke?

you need to get your information straight.....

and stop running around tossing out insults at people more knowledgeable than you are.

the joke is YOU
i asked her why unions are able to do the same thing; she responded that every liberal she knows wants unions as well as corporations be under the same scrutiny

you answered THAT with another rant about corporations being people

you're the troll here

 

[bedowin62]

The Ruckus Society (photo above) is part of the Occupy Movement--and donations to this 501(c)3 organization are tax deductible. The George Soros-funded organization’s purpose reads like a parody of the modern Left.

The Ruckus Society provides environmental, human rights, and social justice organizers with the tools, training, and support needed to achieve their goals through the strategic use of creative, nonviolent direct action.

Ruckus also evidently organizes criminal trespass:

The Brass Liberation Orchestra accompanied a second round of the “I Will Survive…Capitalism” flashmob before leading the crowd of over 1,000 people onto the Bank of America, and deployed a giant balloon banner with our friends at [Rainforest Action Network] reading “Defend Human Dignity: Challenge Corporate Power”...The day of course culminated in the truly mass marches to the Port of Oakland to shut down all operations at the Ports for the night. Some reports say 50,000 people marched and danced the three miles to the ports from Camp, and it was truly an unforgettable experience, marching in a sea of thousands at sunset.

None of this seems to attract any IRS attention. Ruckus's 2011 IRS Form 990 indicates that it has maintained undisturbed 501(c)3 status. The form states Ruckus “provides environmental, human rights, and social justice organizers with the tools, training and support needed to achieve their goals.”

The Ruckus training offers the manual “Beautiful Trouble: A Toolbox for Revolution” and provides suggestions for direct action such as “take over intersections and use for community activities,” give “fake parking tickets on SUV’s,” “Occupy Bank Foreclosed Homes,” and “rip out rancher’s fences” to free livestock.

Planning illegal acts is incompatible with 501(c)3 status. Ruckus is run by Megan Swoboda.

 

[bedowin62]

Women’s Action for New Directions

Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) is another leftist organization funded by George Soros that engages in activity designed to transform politics and America. It dates back to the era when the KGB was funding anti-nuclear movements in the West, and was involved in the effort to block installation of Pershing II missiles in West Germany. After the Soviet Union collapsed, the organization continued to oppose America’s national defense.WAND enjoys 501(c)4 tax-exempt status. The organization also boasts a “Students Action Network for New Directions” that encourages leftist students “to become politically active, to vote, and to network with other WAND members.”

Despite the overt political mission and anti-defense militancy, the 990 Forms submitted by WAND to the IRS whitewash their mission in one short sentence: "Empowering women to stop violence through the legislature."

 

[bedowin62]

New World Foundation

The New World Foundation, like so many others, uses the money from industrialists who built America to help reduce America. Cyrus McCormick’s daughter formed the NWF to help transform the world, starting with America. The foundation enjoys 501(c)3 tax exempt status and exists, according to its IRS Form 990, to support “community activists across America and around the world.”

The IRS Form 990 also states that the NWF seek to “build stronger alliances for social justice, environmental justice...while encouraging democratic participation to achieve real and lasting [sic].” The form details the mission of “mobilizing of the least enfranchised in working class and people of color communities.”
In 2010, NWF spent over $15 million. It funnels money to a variety of activist leftist groups like the Coal River Mountain Watch, Colorado Progressive Action and National Peoples Action.

 

[bedowin62]

Fierce



Fierce is a New York-based organization that employs the Saul Alinsky organizing model toward activist gay issues. Its website unapologetically proclaims that it is “building the leadership and power of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) youth of color,” and “We develop politically conscious leaders.”



Looking toward the future, as always, “FIERCE is dedicated to cultivating the next generation of social justice movement leaders who are dedicated to ending all forms of oppression.” This unapologetic political mission is also included in the IRS Form 990 submitted by Fierce, so it should not surprise the IRS.



Fierce also provides a chart showing its organizing model is dedicated first to “Build our Power,” then “Exercise our Power,” and finally “Sustain our Power.”



Fierce! has 501(c)3 status, making contributions to the overtly political organization tax deductible. Last tax year it spent $529,713 on stipends for activists, travel and other expenses.