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.
Simpler outcome. No political non-profits other than 527s that report to the FEC. No more IRS problem.
I don't think this was ever a use of the IRS as a political tool. Just understaffed and weak supervision. Virtually all the people involved including Lerner were career civil service workers. They tend to the apolitical or even the right. Few card carrying lefties at the worker level. Used to work with some of the spooky types but at the provider of services level. Most would be Trumpites in today's standard.
I agree, there should be no political non-profits. The 501C4's do not have to disclose their donors and many are obviously not social groups. Meanwhile they want to cut the IRS budget $149M and pass legislations that will result in expanding these political groups. we can forget about oversight.
That should be the discussion but right now there is a bill pending in congress that continues to restrict the IRS and SEC from rulemaking and they want to expand 501(c)4's to include businesses and religious groups. The last thing we need is more money in politics.
Quote:
One new item in the appropriations bill would add specific restrictions on the ability of the IRS to curb political activity by churches. Any IRS action to enforce the longstanding legal prohibition against a church or other religious institution spending money to influence elections would have to be reviewed by the IRS commissioner and reported to congressional tax-writing committees under the bill.
The bill would continue to restrict the agency's rulemaking on 501(c)(4) organizations' political activities because such regulation "could jeopardize the tax-exempt status of many nonprofit organizations and inhibit citizens from exercising their right to freedom of speech," according to a committee statement.
That is not true at all, I believe it was 296 groups out of a few thousands were singled out for more intense scrutiny including the 96 that were conservative.
I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. The criteria used to flag other groups targeted political activity. For example 30 percent of groups with the name Progressive in their names were flagged. Whatever they were flagged for would have flagged any group that may be engaging in political activity.
The criteria that flagged "Tea Party" groups was "Tea Party" thus 100% were flagged This criteria is not targeting political activity but is targeting Conservative political activity.
I agree, there should be no political non-profits.
That is easier said than done, most of these organizations have a political agenda. Take for example gun rights group, anti gun groups, pro abortion groups, anti abortion groups, environmental groups, pro energy groups...... the NAACP
I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. The criteria used to flag other groups targeted political activity. For example 30 percent of groups with the name Progressive in their names were flagged. Whatever they were flagged for would have flagged any group that may be engaging in political activity.
The criteria that flagged "Tea Party" groups was "Tea Party" thus 100% were flagged This criteria is not targeting political activity but is targeting Conservative political activity.
I don't see where they flagged only 30% of the groups with "progressive" vs 100% Tea Party being flagged, maybe you have a link? Besides why wouldn't a group with the words "Tea Party" bear further investigation for political activity.
They also used terms "Patriots", "9/12 Project", "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," "medical marijuana" and "occupied territory advocacy".
That is easier said than done, most of these organizations have a political agenda. Take for example gun rights group, anti gun groups, pro abortion groups, anti abortion groups, environmental groups, pro energy groups...... the NAACP
They all engage in political activity.
Yes they are all involved in political activity, but most of these are disguised as social welfare groups. They should an any political activity from 501c4's instead they are increasing the dark money.
I don't see where they flagged only 30% of the groups with "progressive" vs 100% Tea Party being flagged, maybe you have a link? .
It's in the letter from the IG I posted many pages ago, as I said previously read it and educate yourself.
Quote:
They also used terms "Patriots", "9/12 Project", "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," "medical marijuana" and "occupied territory advocacy"
The IG letter mentions both of the first two Conservative groups. It alos mentions the Provessive selector as a comparison because only 30%of them were selected and targeted because of political ideology.
It's in the letter from the IG I posted many pages ago, as I said previously read it and educate yourself.
The IG letter mentions both of the first two Conservative groups. It alos mentions the Provessive selector as a comparison because only 30%of them were selected and targeted because of political ideology.
Go read the letter, educate yourself.
I read the letter. It does not say whether or not the criteria was in fact correct or not. Did a high percentage of the "Tea Party" organizations meet the criteria for being politically active? If so it would be a good criteria.
Again it was probably a thing that should not have been done but more for its political fallout than anything else. It appears to identify selectively conservative organizations whether that was the intent or not.
You are quoting me out of context, of course it will not make sense.
What I said was:
The criteria was any group with "Tea Party" in their name. That has everything to do with political ideology and it's illegal. There was other Conservative groups targeted to, no such liberal groups were flagged because of their ideology.
Using the name "Tea Party" made it easy to clearly identify a group as likely political, that is all that was needed for further scrutiny. The likely ideology of a "Tea Party" group is irrelevant to the equation.
This was at a time when the Tea Party was gaining a lot of steam leading up to the 2012 election. These delays were not weeks but many months and even years.
Heavily political Tea Party groups could and likely did continue their work.
Lois Lerner definitely tampered with a presidential election to hamper conservative groups who supported the Republican candidate. This is what the sicko left I saying about Trump without evidence..
Plenty of evidence that the IRS went after conservative groups to intimidate them including both Billy Graham and Franklin Graham who heads Samaritans Purse.
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.
