Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
are you this dense? democrats were using 501(c)4's BEFORE CU. Neihter you nor anyone else had a problem with it until the SCOTUS made it easy for others to do what democrats were already doing.
Your bloviating over CU rings hollow. You people didn’t care until Republican businessmen could do what you guys were already doing!
This is wrong also. C.U. had absolutely nothing to do with who could use the (c)4 designation.
My eariler link notes that (c)4's do have to file reports on who donates to them in any amount over $200. Once again and for some reason this doesn't seem to want to sink in, C.U. had absolutely nothing to do with taxes or tax status. It was filed to overturn McCain/Feingold.
But again, just to argue.........if me and 500 other people want to pool our money together to express our beliefs, how is how we spend our money any of your business?
Also, I should note......NARAL is many different things depending on the use of their money.
Read your own link.
"501(c)(4) organizations are required to report information to the IRS and FEC. They are generally
required to file an annual information return (Form 990) with the IRS. Information about
campaign activity is reported on the form’s Schedule C, which is subject to public disclosure.
While large donors are reported on the form, no identifying information is required to be publicly
disclosed"
They have to report the money, but they don't identify the donor by name, making the contributions ANONYMOUS. They can assign them a numerical ID, or find another way to identify them, and still do full reporting to the IRS. That's what "doesn't want to sink in" with you. If you want to pool your money with 500 people, that's fine as lone as it's publicly reported--that's what PACS do. NARAL is many different things depending on the different organizations it creates to do different kinds of work. I don't know anything about the organization, but their charitable and educational work could be done under a 501(c)3, their lobbying and social welfare work (split 51/49%) under a 501(c)4, and they probably also have a PAC. I'm guessing, but that's fairly typical for large organizations.
Quote:
Never mind that I've said over and over and over that the government can change these regulations. There is nothing stopping them outside of their will. Do you want to discuss C.U. or tax policy? I'm not going to argue against ending the (c)4 designation.
So why do you keep ranting about the CU? The reasons that some don't like the CU isn't because of CU itself, but because of the way the ruling allowed organizations to manipulate the system with unlimited ANONYMOUS donations to 501(c)4's, along with a change in the work that 501(c)4'S can do. That seems to be beyond your intellectual ability to grasp.
Quote:
The thread is about CU. I'm trying to stay on topic.
You don't seem to UNDERSTAND the topic, so you're the last person who should be telling anyone else to stay on it. Of course the abuse of 501(C)4's is part of the discussion, because the CU ruling opened up an opportunity for the 501(c)4 process to be abused. Prior to the CU ruling, there really was no reason to give to a 501(c)4 vs. a PAC to benefit candidates, because prior to CU, 501(c)4 groups couldn't do express advocacy--making a case for one candidate or another-- or electioneering communications--they couldn't even mention a candidates name in the past. You could give unlimited amounts to a 501(c)4 prior to CU, but the group could do very limited election work. If they wanted to do campaign work, they had to go through a PAC, and it was public record. Now 501(c)4's can do ALL of those things, AND they can still take unlimited donations. Donors can work directly on behalf of a candidate through a 501(c)4, and the donation is anonymous. We need to enforce and define the social welfare provision of the 501(c)4 tax exempt status so that those groups do social welfare work in the way the designation was intended when it was created. Political groups are abusing the tax exempt status used for organizations that actually perform social welfare work, when in fact they're not doing any of that work at all, and they're just another arm of a campaign for specific candidates. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/ma...anted=all&_r=0
are you this dense? democrats were using 501(c)4's BEFORE CU. Neihter you nor anyone else had a problem with it until the SCOTUS made it easy for others to do what democrats were already doing.
Your bloviating over CU rings hollow. You people didn’t care until Republican businessmen could do what you guys were already doing!
Again--501(c)4 groups have always been around, their donors have never had to be publicly reported, and they could always take large donations, but they had tight restrictions on the campaign activities they could do. The designation was originally created for things like civic leagues or community fire departments. They are STILL supposed to be groups that do at least 51% of their work in social welfare that benefit the ENTIRE community, and not just part of it, and they can spend the rest on lobbying or campaigning. When the CU ruling came down, it created a vehicle for individuals to give billions of dollars anonymously, and still do the work they were doing in a PAC. The problem is that those groups do ZERO social welfare work--they've replaced a chunk of the work of PACS, but now no one knows who's behind the money. 501(c)4's were never intended for that purpose, and it's a problem. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/ma...anted=all&_r=0
They have to report the money, but they don't identify the donor by name, making the contributions ANONYMOUS.
It's reported to the government, right? There are regulations as to how money can be spent on political activity. It's all there for the government to go after if it's not valid. If the government refuses to, the answer is not to go after those who do things in a legit manner.
On top of that, as I've noted over and over, it's none of your business how I want to spend my money. If I want to send $150 to group A to help defeat bill B, why exactly should that be any of your business?
Quote:
They can assign them a numerical ID, or find another way to identify them, and still do full reporting to the IRS. That's what "doesn't want to sink in" with you. If you want to pool your money with 500 people, that's fine as lone as it's publicly reported--that's what PACS do. NARAL is many different things depending on the different organizations it creates to do different kinds of work. I don't know anything about the organization, but their charitable and educational work could be done under a 501(c)3, their lobbying and social welfare work (split 51/49%) under a 501(c)4, and they probably also have a PAC. I'm guessing, but that's fairly typical for large organizations.
Probably.
Quote:
So why do you keep ranting about the CU? The reasons that some don't like the CU isn't because of CU itself, but because of the way the ruling allowed organizations to manipulate the system with unlimited ANONYMOUS donations to 501(c)4's, along with a change in the work that 501(c)4'S can do. That seems to be beyond your intellectual ability to grasp.
It did nothing of the sort. Nothing with (c)4's changed before or after McCain/Feingold. Are there now more groups getting involved in the political process? Yes they are and that is a good thing. But as the IRS records show, it's still not all that many despite their initial claims.
Quote:
You don't seem to UNDERSTAND the topic, so you're the last person who should be telling anyone else to stay on it. Of course the abuse of 501(C)4's is part of the discussion, because the CU ruling opened up an opportunity for the 501(c)4 process to be abused.
Prior to the CU ruling, there really wasn't that big of an advantage to giving to a 501(c)4 vs. a PAC because prior to CU, 501(c)4 groups couldn't do express advocacy--making a case for one candidate or another-- or electioneering communications--they couldn't even mention a candidates name in the past. You could give unlimited amounts to a 501(c)4 prior to CU, but the group could do very limited election work. If they wanted to do campaign work, they had to go through a PAC, and it was public record. Now 501(c)4's can do ALL of those things, AND they can still take unlimited donations. Donors can work directly on behalf of a candidate through a 501(c)4, and the donation is anonymous. We need to enforce and define the social welfare provision of the 501(c)4 tax exempt status so that those groups do social welfare work in the way the designation was intended when it was created. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/ma...anted=all&_r=0
Let me note right off something in this article.
including a super PAC led by Karl Rove and another group backed by the brothers Charles and David Koch, will likely spend more than a billion dollars trying to take down Barack Obama by the time November rolls around.
Did it work? No it did not. Money does not have nearly as much influence with elections as many try to claim. Does it have an influence once a politician is elected? Yes.
As for the article concerning this discussion.
The term is shorthand for a Supreme Court decision that gave corporations much of the same right to political speech as individuals have, thus removing virtually any restriction on corporate money in politics.
It did nothing of the sort. Every single regulation that was in place concerning corporations and donating to politicians and political parties are still in place. C.U. did nothing to change that.
The oft-repeated narrative of 2012 goes like this: Citizens United unleashed a torrent of money from businesses and the multimillionaires who run them, and as a result we are now seeing the corporate takeover of American politics.
The amount spent in 2012 went up appx 10% from 2008, just as 2008 did from 2004 and 2004 from 2000.
One also needs to note......not a single corporation was involved in the C.U. lawsuit. The main groups was the ACLU, NARAL, NRA and the Unions.
Again--501(c)4 groups have always been around, their donors have never had to be publicly reported, and they could always take large donations, but they had tight restrictions on the campaign activities they could do. The designation was originally created for things like civic leagues or community fire departments. They are STILL supposed to be groups that do at least 51% of their work in social welfare that benefit the ENTIRE community, and not just part of it, and they can spend the rest on lobbying or campaigning. When the CU ruling came down, it created a vehicle for individuals to give billions of dollars anonymously, and still do the work they were doing in a PAC. The problem is that those groups do ZERO social welfare work--they've replaced a chunk of the work of PACS, but now no one knows who's behind the money. 501(c)4's were never intended for that purpose, and it's a problem. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/ma...anted=all&_r=0
Again--501(c)4 groups have always been around, their donors have never had to be publicly reported, and they could always take large donations, but they had tight restrictions on the campaign activities they could do. The designation was originally created for things like civic leagues or community fire departments. They are STILL supposed to be groups that do at least 51% of their work in social welfare that benefit the ENTIRE community, and not just part of it, and they can spend the rest on lobbying or campaigning. When the CU ruling came down, it created a vehicle for individuals to give billions of dollars anonymously, and still do the work they were doing in a PAC. The problem is that those groups do ZERO social welfare work--they've replaced a chunk of the work of PACS, but now no one knows who's behind the money. 501(c)4's were never intended for that purpose, and it's a problem. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/ma...anted=all&_r=0
and again, liberals have used this in increasing numbers and to great effect over the last couple of decades.
they got irate when others, other than themselves got access to it.
It's reported to the government, right? There are regulations as to how money can be spent on political activity. It's all there for the government to go after if it's not valid. If the government refuses to, the answer is not to go after those who do things in a legit manner.
On top of that, as I've noted over and over, it's none of your business how I want to spend my money. If I want to send $150 to group A to help defeat bill B, why exactly should that be any of your business?
The amounts are reported, but not the name of the donor. It's absolutely my business to know who's financially backing a candidate. Donations to 501(c)4's have never had to be reported, but up until CU, they couldn't do campaign work. PACS have ALWAYS been required to report donor names. As a conservative, if you were interested in a republican candidate, and then found out that the labor movement, or George Soros, had given him or her a billion dollars, would it make a difference in how you vote? Would you want to know WHY, and would you ask that candidate more questions? OF COURSE it matters.
AGAIN--the 501(c)4 designation was created for social welfare groups like civic leagues and community fire departments. They're required (by law) to do work that benefits the ENTIRE community--not one segment of it--and at least 51% of their work has to be in activities that actually ARE social welfare. They were allowed to do 49% in legislative work like lobbying in the past, because it's realistic that a community group would have an interest in public policy that impacts that community, but they were restricted from endorsing specific candidates or doing work on behalf of specific candidates--it had to be nonpartisan. CU changed the rules--it allows those groups to do extensive work for specific candidates now. The problem is that groups that do absolutely ZERO social welfare work are opening up shop as a 501(c)4 and do ALL election work to get around the reporting requirements of PACS.
Quote:
It did nothing of the sort. Nothing with (c)4's changed before or after McCain/Feingold. Are there now more groups getting involved in the political process? Yes they are and that is a good thing. But as the IRS records show, it's still not all that many despite their initial claims.
That's because 501(c)4 groups had tight restrictions on election activities before CU. McCain/Feingold didn't apply. The changes in what a 501(c)4 can do in terms of campaign work came with the CU ruling
including a super PAC led by Karl Rove and another group backed by the brothers Charles and David Koch, will likely spend more than a billion dollars trying to take down Barack Obama by the time November rolls around.
Did it work? No it did not. Money does not have nearly as much influence with elections as many try to claim. Does it have an influence once a politician is elected? Yes.
Romney would have never got the GOP nomination if he wasn't the best funded candidate. You are very naive. The only reason that Newt and Santorum stayed in as long as they did, even when they were flailing in the polls and not winning state primaries, is because they had one or two large donors who kept them afloat. In the primary process, the ability to raise money is everything. Once you're in the general you're dealing with two big dogs who are usually fairly closely matched financially, and who have 100% of the financial backing of their own party. The other issue with Romney is that he squandered the resources he had--it was a poor management issue. He spent a lot of money, but Obama had spent the time and money early on to put in place a superior ground organization--he had an incredibly sophisticated voter ID and GOTV (get out the vote) structure in place, and he used technology and social media in a way that was light years beyond what the Romney campaign even attempted to do, although they spent comparable amounts of money. Obama ran a smarter, better organized campaign with the money he had. That said, if the Obama campaign hadn't been well funded, they couldn't have done the work. If all things are equal, it comes down to managment and strategy, but if the money isn't equal you're at a serious disadvantage.
Quote:
As for the article concerning this discussion.
The term is shorthand for a Supreme Court decision that gave corporations much of the same right to political speech as individuals have, thus removing virtually any restriction on corporate money in politics.
It did nothing of the sort. Every single regulation that was in place concerning corporations and donating to politicians and political parties are still in place. C.U. did nothing to change that.
The oft-repeated narrative of 2012 goes like this: Citizens United unleashed a torrent of money from businesses and the multimillionaires who run them, and as a result we are now seeing the corporate takeover of American politics.
The amount spent in 2012 went up appx 10% from 2008, just as 2008 did from 2004 and 2004 from 2000.
One also needs to note......not a single corporation was involved in the C.U. lawsuit. The main groups was the ACLU, NARAL, NRA and the Unions.
Did you bother to read the article thoroughly? It goes on to explain how the 501(c)4 issue is the real problem, just as I've been trying to explain to you for DAYS. Of course corporations weren't involved in the CU lawsuit, because they had no idea the SCOTUS would rule this way. AFTER the CU ruling, political groups saw an opportunity to abuse the 501(c)4 status to do campaign work anonymously, and they took it. They need to tighten up the regs plus enforce what's there to make sure that only real social welfare groups, actually doing social welfare work, can use that status.
Quote:
Someone should.
You obviously didn't read the materials or understand them, and yet you continued to call me names, tell me I'm lying and/or say I didn't know what I was talking about. People generally say things like that, without documenting why they are correct themselves, when they don't have facts to fall back on. Who needs to listen and who's wrong? It's not me.
The amounts are reported, but not the name of the donor.
Read it again. Any amount over $200 must be reported as to who donated it. If you want to argue that people donating $100 is a problem, have at it.
Quote:
It's absolutely my business to know who's financially backing a candidate. Donations to 501(c)4's have never had to be reported, but up until CU, they couldn't do campaign work.
I'm done. I learn to quit putting my fingers in the car door and slamming it.
Now.....I'l go down the same road I tried earlier with no answer.
If NARAL wants to spend their money on an ad stating that Bill 123XYZ is bad as it would curtail a women's right to choose and for those who support that right they need to vote for candidates that would vote "no" on that issue, why is that any of your business or the governments?
Why should it be illegal for a group of like thinking people to pool their money to get their poistion out there?
actually anyone can buy ad time on TV or radio supporting what ever they want, and pointing out candidates that either support or oppose their position. these ads though have to identify the people or organization that is buying the ad time.
and again, liberals have used this in increasing numbers and to great effect over the last couple of decades.
they got irate when others, other than themselves got access to it.
period.
No--you don't get it AT ALL. The Citizens United ruling happened in 2008. That was when the rules changed for 501(c)4 organizations. Prior to that ruling, 501(c)4 groups had tight limits on election activities. Nobody has been "using this in increasing numbers and to great effect over the last couple of decades." 501(c)4 groups have only been used to do extensive campaign work since the 2010 elections, and it was almost entirely done by GOP supporting groups until now. The democrats are starting their own 501(c)4 groups--allowing them to do political work as well with anonymous donors who can give unlimited amounts of money--and you may not like it very much, because it looks like there's going to be a whole lot of financial support for Hillary Clinton run through them. Don't you want to know who's financially backing Hillary Clinton in the next election? One donor could give a 501(c)4 a billion or more dollars to do work on behalf of Clinton, and you'll never be able to find out who it is, or why they're giving it to her. See the problem?
No matter who does it, using 501(c)4 groups in that manner is an abuse of the system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you want to pool your money with 500 people, that's fine as lone as it's publicly reported--that's what PACS do. NARAL is many different things depending on the different organizations it creates to do different kinds of work. I don't know anything about the organization, but their charitable and educational work could be done under a 501(c)3, their lobbying and social welfare work (split 51/49%) under a 501(c)4, and they probably also have a PAC. I'm guessing, but that's fairly typical for large organizations. 
501(c)4 groups have only been used to do extensive campaign work since the 2010 elections, and it was almost entirely done by GOP supporting groups until now. The democrats are starting their own 501(c)4 groups--allowing them to do political work as well with anonymous donors who can give unlimited amounts of money--and you may not like it very much, because it looks like there's going to be a whole lot of financial support for Hillary Clinton run through them. Don't you want to know who's financially backing Hillary Clinton in the next election? One donor could give a 501(c)4 a billion or more dollars to do work on behalf of Clinton, and you'll never be able to find out who it is, or why they're giving it to her. See the problem?
