What About Any Tea Party Organization Is For The Purpose of Social Welfare?

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The NAACP was formed in 1909 - when "colored" people had significantly less legal rights than white people. Ignoring historical context is why you guys come up with this baffling nonsense.

I doubt W.E.B. DuBois would be particularly thrilled with it today.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I'd like to hear this one.

BTW, that's what the IRS REQUIRES for 501(c)4 status, which is what this made up scandal is all about.

See: Social Welfare Organizations

Exactly.

The IRS is supposed to review applications where there is a genuine question as to the the applicability of a given exemption.

This particular exemption stipulates "Social Welfare".

And in 2010 the GOP filed over 300 applications for this "Social Welfare" exemption, whereas the Left had under 50 applications because it was a "Republican Year" (as the midterms usually are), and... the Left has always had trouble getting corporations to consistently invest into a party that wants to raise their taxes (so corporations tend only to give the Dems cash when it's a "Democratic Year" for the presidency and there is no reason to invest in the GOP).

Let's be clear: the IRS can't exhaustively review every application, so they use "red flag" terms in hopes of being able to review the greatest number of applications with potential issues.

Why is the "Tea Party" a "red flag" term? For starters, the Tea Party wants to abolish the IRS, so yeah, they're the most likely group to scam the IRS ergo they should expect extra scrutiny. C'mon people, this is not complicated. But also, the 300+ Tea Party applications were competing against Liberal groups that wanted to do actual Welfare, like extend food to poor school children, many from Red States. The bulk of these liberal groups fit the textbook definition of Social Welfare, which targets the poor and marginalized groups. I understand if the Right has an issue with the exemption (because they hate welfare), but the exemption is what it is. If you don't like it, than change the law. No big deal. The Right has changed the tax code way more than the Left since Reagan, so they shouldn't be complaining that this one exemption does not fit into their typical modus.

Irony of Ironies. The Tea Party is a purely political organization designed to crush Social Welfare for the purpose of lowering the tax burden on the wealthy. The Tea Party is the antithesis of this particular exemption. Does the Left have similar organizations that are purely political and not designed for social welfare. Of course they do, and those Lefty organizations should have been denied too. But, the number of Lefty groups who applied in 2010 for this exemption does not hold a candle to the quantity of Tea Party groups who applied, which represented the greatest Tsunami of "Citizens United" cash the IRS has ever seen. So for many reasons, the IRS needed search tools to efficiently process the greatest number of potentially bogus applications.

Meaning: this is another manufactured scandal.

As long as the FOX News viewer gets angry at this "scandal"... More specifically, as long as the heavily manipulated xenophobic racist Revanchist god-fearing patriot shrugs his shoulders and says "it's always something with the government", than it doesn't matter if the scandal is false. The point of movement conservatism is to plant anti-government sentiments in the limbic and lizardly part of the unconscious brain. The facts don't matter.

I understand you don't like the Tea Party and you've certainly given a litany of left wing talking point to buttress your hatred and disdain of conservative groups but personal views aside. Do you really think conservative,Liberal,Democratic,Republican organizations should be held to different standards? Would you want a conservatively politicized IRS to have different rules for left wing groups because most domestic terrorists (ELF- an ecological terrorist group, Unabomber, The Weather Underground, The Black Liberation Army, etc) are leftists? Would you support the IRS red flagging Muslim organizations? Your premise is based on sophomoric ad hominem attack towards people you politically disagree with. It's nothing more than that.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The NAACP was formed in 1909 - when "colored" people had significantly less legal rights than white people. Ignoring historical context is why you guys come up with this baffling nonsense.

I doubt W.E.B. DuBois would be particularly thrilled with it today.

Why do you say that?

 

[Lakhota]

In 1959 the IRS changed the word "exclusively" to "primarily" without any legal authority to do so - which brought on the confusion.

 

[sfcalifornia]

I'd like to hear this one.

BTW, that's what the IRS REQUIRES for 501(c)4 status, which is what this made up scandal is all about.

See: Social Welfare Organizations

Can you name any left-wing 502 (c) 4 that operates for the social welfare?

LOL Like that question doesn't come with an agenda...

 

[Lakhota]

This is truly hilarious...

Crossroads GPS, the conservative nonprofit that directly spent more than $70 million on federal political campaigns in the 2012 election, believes that it is one of the organizations targeted for further review by the Internal Revenue Service, according to a Los Angeles Times report.

The organization, co-founded by Karl Rove after the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling opened the door to new political spending, has been held up by campaign finance watchdogs as the primary example of a political group using the tax code to evade disclosure of its donors. Nonprofits organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, as Crossroads GPS is, are not required to name their donors, while political organizations like 527s and super PACs must disclose who funds them.

Crossroads GPS Claims IRS Target Status

 

[bripat9643]

I'd like to hear this one.

BTW, that's what the IRS REQUIRES for 501(c)4 status, which is what this made up scandal is all about.

See: Social Welfare Organizations

Can you name any left-wing 502 (c) 4 that operates for the social welfare?

LOL Like that question doesn't come with an agenda...

I'll take that as a "no."

 

[bripat9643]

This is truly hilarious...

Crossroads GPS, the conservative nonprofit that directly spent more than $70 million on federal political campaigns in the 2012 election, believes that it is one of the organizations targeted for further review by the Internal Revenue Service, according to a Los Angeles Times report.

The organization, co-founded by Karl Rove after the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling opened the door to new political spending, has been held up by campaign finance watchdogs as the primary example of a political group using the tax code to evade disclosure of its donors. Nonprofits organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, as Crossroads GPS is, are not required to name their donors, while political organizations like 527s and super PACs must disclose who funds them.

Crossroads GPS Claims IRS Target Status

You mean they donated money to political candidates or endorsed specific candidates in ads?

 

[sfcalifornia]

This is truly hilarious...

Crossroads GPS, the conservative nonprofit that directly spent more than $70 million on federal political campaigns in the 2012 election, believes that it is one of the organizations targeted for further review by the Internal Revenue Service, according to a Los Angeles Times report.

The organization, co-founded by Karl Rove after the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling opened the door to new political spending, has been held up by campaign finance watchdogs as the primary example of a political group using the tax code to evade disclosure of its donors. Nonprofits organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, as Crossroads GPS is, are not required to name their donors, while political organizations like 527s and super PACs must disclose who funds them.

Crossroads GPS Claims IRS Target Status

Too funny. Here's some more:

Crossroads GPS spent $16 million on political campaign ads in 2010, its first year of existence, and another $70 million during the 2012 electoral cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The group also spent tens of millions on issue ads aimed at specific candidates up for election. Moreover, Crossroads GPS is staffed largely by former Republican Party functionaries, something that has raised IRS eyebrows when it looked at other groups.

Without any inappropriate targeting, all these factors, reported both in the media and to the Federal Election Commission, could have led to a further review of Crossroads GPS' tax-exempt application.

And then they whine about being unfairly targeted. Please.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I accept that money controls politics. It always has. 501c4s and Super PACs just make it a little more obvious.

And some of that money ends up in my pocket, so I can't really complain that much.

 

[bripat9643]

This is truly hilarious...

Crossroads GPS, the conservative nonprofit that directly spent more than $70 million on federal political campaigns in the 2012 election, believes that it is one of the organizations targeted for further review by the Internal Revenue Service, according to a Los Angeles Times report.

The organization, co-founded by Karl Rove after the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling opened the door to new political spending, has been held up by campaign finance watchdogs as the primary example of a political group using the tax code to evade disclosure of its donors. Nonprofits organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, as Crossroads GPS is, are not required to name their donors, while political organizations like 527s and super PACs must disclose who funds them.

Crossroads GPS Claims IRS Target Status

Too funny. Here's some more:

Crossroads GPS spent $16 million on political campaign ads in 2010, its first year of existence, and another $70 million during the 2012 electoral cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The group also spent tens of millions on issue ads aimed at specific candidates up for election. Moreover, Crossroads GPS is staffed largely by former Republican Party functionaries, something that has raised IRS eyebrows when it looked at other groups.

Without any inappropriate targeting, all these factors, reported both in the media and to the Federal Election Commission, could have led to a further review of Crossroads GPS' tax-exempt application.

And then they whine about being unfairly targeted. Please.

In other words, all their advertising expenditures were appropriate.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! No points.

Thanks for playing!

 

[editec]

There is no requirement for either 501c3s or 501c4s to be "non-partisan".

Getting people elected to office can be considered in the interests of "social welfare".

501c-3s are to be Apolitical, Doc. Those charities have to completely eschew politics and simply carry out their stated objectives to provide charity of some kind to their targeted client base.

501c-4s can have political/social agenda's as long as they do not support or work with candidates or political parties. C-4s are partisan but partisans only to their message, and not (in theory at least) to any overtly political organization.

That's a very fine line and one that is far too easily crossed to really, in my opinion at least, make much sense.

 

[FJO]

It is a non-partisan group here, anyone and everyone is welcome to join and have a voice in the discussions. There are no limits based upon gender, such as NOW, or race, such as the NAACP and La Raza, as to who they welcome into their meetings and aim to help and assist as they can. They believe that every one is important regardless of race or gender and has and equal voice.

There are no gender or racial requirements to join either the NAACP or NOW.

I am a white male, and a member of both.

But as a White Male, neither one cares about you or works for you.

Hell, they care even for their own kind!

When did the NAACP ever stand up for a conservative colored person?
When did NOW ever defend a conservative woman?

The only thing they care about are power and money, as is typical for all bullies.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I guess this all depends on what a person considers to be "social welfare".

For some, "social welfare" doesn't necessarily have to mean just giving someone something. It may mean inspiring them to earn it for themselves, to lift themselves up without the help of others. To help someone by expecting more from them.

I'm no Tea Partier, but that makes perfect sense to me.

.

 

[FJO]

The NAACP was formed in 1909 - when "colored" people had significantly less legal rights than white people. Ignoring historical context is why you guys come up with this baffling nonsense.

I doubt W.E.B. DuBois would be particularly thrilled with it today.

And seeing that the NAACP doesn't give a crap about contents of character, but slaves of race-baiting (pun intended) Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. must be rolling in his grave.

 

[MarcATL]

There is no requirement for either 501c3s or 501c4s to be "non-partisan".

Getting people elected to office can be considered in the interests of "social welfare".

This right here is just another excuse to funnel money to candidates anonymously.

Plain and simple.

 

[hortysir]

I'd like to hear this one.

BTW, that's what the IRS REQUIRES for 501(c)4 status, which is what this made up scandal is all about.

See: Social Welfare Organizations

Media Matters for America is a
Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation
in the U.S. media.

About Us | Media Matters for America

STFU

 

[MarcATL]

I'd like to hear this one.

BTW, that's what the IRS REQUIRES for 501(c)4 status, which is what this made up scandal is all about.

See: Social Welfare Organizations

Exactly.

The IRS is supposed to review applications where there is a genuine question as to the the applicability of a given exemption.

This particular exemption stipulates "Social Welfare".

And in 2010 the GOP filed over 300 applications for this "Social Welfare" exemption, whereas the Left had under 50 applications because it was a "Republican Year" (as the midterms usually are), and... the Left has always had trouble getting corporations to consistently invest into a party that wants to raise their taxes (so corporations tend only to give the Dems cash when it's a "Democratic Year" for the presidency and there is no reason to invest in the GOP).

Let's be clear: the IRS can't exhaustively review every application, so they use "red flag" terms in hopes of being able to review the greatest number of applications with potential issues.

Why is the "Tea Party" a "red flag" term? For starters, the Tea Party wants to abolish the IRS, so yeah, they're the most likely group to scam the IRS ergo they should expect extra scrutiny. C'mon people, this is not complicated. But also, the 300+ Tea Party applications were competing against Liberal groups that wanted to do actual Welfare, like extend food to poor school children, many from Red States. The bulk of these liberal groups fit the textbook definition of Social Welfare, which targets the poor and marginalized groups. I understand if the Right has an issue with the exemption (because they hate welfare), but the exemption is what it is. If you don't like it, than change the law. No big deal. The Right has changed the tax code way more than the Left since Reagan, so they shouldn't be complaining that this one exemption does not fit into their typical modus.

Irony of Ironies. The Tea Party is a purely political organization designed to crush Social Welfare for the purpose of lowering the tax burden on the wealthy. The Tea Party is the antithesis of this particular exemption. Does the Left have similar organizations that are purely political and not designed for social welfare. Of course they do, and those Lefty organizations should have been denied too. But, the number of Lefty groups who applied in 2010 for this exemption does not hold a candle to the quantity of Tea Party groups who applied, which represented the greatest Tsunami of "Citizens United" cash the IRS has ever seen. So for many reasons, the IRS needed search tools to efficiently process the greatest number of potentially bogus applications.

Meaning: this is another manufactured scandal.

As long as the FOX News viewer gets angry at this "scandal"... More specifically, as long as the heavily manipulated xenophobic racist Revanchist god-fearing patriot shrugs his shoulders and says "it's always something with the government", than it doesn't matter if the scandal is false. The point of movement conservatism is to plant anti-government sentiments in the limbic and lizardly part of the unconscious brain. The facts don't matter.

Well said, very well said.

Why would someone who wants to abolish the IRS be likely to scam the IRS?

The NAACP was formed in 1909 - when "colored" people had significantly less legal rights than white people. Ignoring historical context is why you guys come up with this baffling nonsense.

I doubt W.E.B. DuBois would be particularly thrilled with it today.

Why wouldn't he?

 

[XPostFacto]

What part of what you just stated is for the social welfare of the people?

The Tea Party stands for the freedom of Americans, which is a good part of social welfare. They are not at all like the Democrat (communist party) in America, today.

 

[XPostFacto]

There is no requirement for either 501c3s or 501c4s to be "non-partisan".

Getting people elected to office can be considered in the interests of "social welfare".

This right here is just another excuse to funnel money to candidates anonymously.

Plain and simple.

The Democrats do it all the time.