'How is the IRS supposed to vet 501(c)(4) groups, anyway?'

[Stephanie]

We the PEOPLE should call for this agency along with the EPA be ABOLISHED

THEY HAVE STEPPED over the bounds with their power

THIS is what happens when a GOVERNMENT becomes TOO BIG..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The question remains, how does an over worked IRS employee make sense of the growth of tea party groups that claim to be about social welfare? Someone please show us what the tea party and other so called patriots do that is 'social welfare?' Whining is not social welfare.

"Pretend you work at the Internal Revenue Service. Actually, let’s make this exercise even more terrible. Pretend you’re an underpaid, low-level clerk working in the understaffed IRS backwater of Cincinnati. Every day, a big stack of files lands on your desk. Every day, the stack gets a little bigger than the last. Each file represents a new application for a certain tax status—501(c)(4), a tax-exempt designation meant for “social welfare” organizations. Nonprofits with this status aren’t required to disclose the identity of their donors and they’re allowed to lobby legislative officials. The catch is that they must limit their political campaign activity. According to IRS rules, 501(c)(4) groups can participate in elections, but electioneering must not be their “primary” mission.

Got all that? Good—now let’s get to work. It’s your job to decide which 501(c)(4) applications represent legitimate social-welfare organizations, and which ones are from groups trying to hide their campaign activities. What’s more, you’ve got to sort the good from the bad very quickly, as you’re being inundated with applications. In 2010, your office received 1,735 applications for 501(c)(4) status. In 2011, the number jumped 30 percent, to 2,265, and in 2012 there was another 50 percent spike, this time to 3,357 applications."

Tea Party, IRS: Will the IRS?s profiling of Tea Party groups convince conservatives that all kinds of profiling are wrong? - Slate Magazine

The question remains, how does an over worked IRS employee make sense of the growth of tea party groups that claim to be about social welfare? Someone please show us what the tea party and other so called patriots do that is 'social welfare?' Whining is not social welfare.

It's true, Obama's whining doesn't improve anyones welfare.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the IRS had confined itself to financial questions it would have been okay. They reached further wanting personal information the were not entitled to have. Then, these poor overworked clerks just so happened to audit these organizations with no basis to conduct an audit or three or four.

Even with all that, had the IRS stuck to tea party groups it might have gotten away with it. Flush with success over the tea party it branched out to religious groups, pro life groups, individuals that were critical of the presidebt and finally individuals who donated to a republican candidate. That got too big to ignore or blame someone else.

 

[Stephanie]

You think we'd be seeing this from Slate if all these groups had been Progressive-Democrat-OWS-pro-abortion, etc etc?

 

[midcan5]

Well I guess it is settled, the IRS in Cincinnati was simply doing something of questionable legality under our fairness doctrine, treat all who cheat equally. Now that the republicans know it included both sides of the political spectrum, they can return to the job bills and other important policies they were working so hard to create before being sidetracked with this name game. You go republicans....

"....[C]ongressional Democrats released a document showing that IRS agents targeted groups with "progressive" in their names. "Common thread is the word 'progressive,'" the November 2010 IRS document says. "Activities are partisan and appear as anti-Republican."

"... The Associated Press said that besides ''progressive," lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination included the terms ''Israel'' and ''Occupy.'' The AP said an investigation into why specific terms were included was underway."

IRS: Other 'inappropriate' screening of groups done

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well I guess it is settled, the IRS in Cincinnati was simply doing something of questionable legality under our fairness doctrine, treat all who cheat equally. Now that the republicans know it included both sides of the political spectrum, they can return to the job bills and other important policies they were working so hard to create before being sidetracked with this name game. You go republicans....

"....[C]ongressional Democrats released a document showing that IRS agents targeted groups with "progressive" in their names. "Common thread is the word 'progressive,'" the November 2010 IRS document says. "Activities are partisan and appear as anti-Republican."

"... The Associated Press said that besides ''progressive," lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination included the terms ''Israel'' and ''Occupy.'' The AP said an investigation into why specific terms were included was underway."

IRS: Other 'inappropriate' screening of groups done

You guess wrong, as usual.

 

[Stephanie]

What ever happened to jobs and reducing poverty levels in America as goals of our representatives? What happened to rebuilding America? Today one assumed scandal after another is all the American public is treated to. How would the IRS vet front groups for big money? Anyone know? It is as if Monica is back and distraction is the name of the game. Remember all those ideas on job creation that these new representatives had in 2010? What happened? Has Rand Paul or Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz presented a single jobs bill of any kind? No need to answer, money now manages America. Shame it ain't the good kind of money.

'The Real I.R.S. Scandal' Posted By Jeffrey Toobin

"It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

If that definition sounds murky—that is, if it’s unclear what 501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to do—that’s because it is murky. Particularly leading up to the 2012 elections, many conservative organizations, nominally 501(c)(4)s, were all but explicitly political in their work. For example, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the Koch Brothers, was an instrumental force in helping the Republicans hold the House of Representatives. In every meaningful sense, groups like Americans for Prosperity were operating as units of the Republican Party. Democrats organized similar operations, but on a much smaller scale. (They undoubtedly would have done more, but they lacked the Republican base for funding such efforts.)"

Tea Partiers and Tax Exemption: The Real I.R.S. Scandal : The New Yorker

How is the IRS supposed to vet 501(c)(4) groups, anyway?

Original source: Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog: Brian Leiter thinks right-wing crazy issue "du jour" is nonsense

yeah what happened to jobs AND reducing the unemployment level under Obama and his Progressive administation? Obama is going to rail about global warming tomorrow..
what HAPPENED ABOUT JOBS?