Road Trip Day #1,,,,on LI and will start digging in the morning,
Let's face the facts here....the groups that were targeted, Tea Party groups, various Religious groups, etc., are groups that people like Bon and MLJ have much contempt for. Whether they will admit it or not they enjoy the fact that these folks were targeted. Their denial of obvious wrongdoings, in the face of resignations and condemnations, show just how biased they are. The sad thing is that this kind of intolerant partisan politics have found their way into mainstream politics on BOTH sides of the fence. No intelligent person can watch these folks make their accusations with a straight face, knowing that the accusers "side" are guilty of the exact thing they are condemning.
I'm used to discussing issues with these type of folks on both the right and the left. The far left folks like MLJ "accuse" me of being on the right and the far right folks accuse me of being on the left......and they say it as if it's an insult, when in reality, if you chalk it up to where it comes from, it's a great compliment.
So, what is this really about? I certainly approve of the IRS doing their job, and investigating groups that claim that they qualify to not pay taxes.
They could have done it in a way that did not cause so much controversy.
Can you give an example, please?
By originally using the less controversial criterion/language that they ended up settling on in May 2012: ???501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (raising questions as to exempt purpose and/or excess private benefit).???
Staying generic with the language would have given them more cover. Then it probably would have been a slow-burn controversy instead of an explosive one.
The problem with this idea is two fold:
1) The investigations began in 2010, so the May 2012 criterion you say was settled on, wasn't in existence.
2) The language of 501c4 is clear and unambiguous. "Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes."
The operative word is exclusively. The law has not been changed, even by the supposed May 2012 "settling".
My point is that they should be smart enough to know the political implications of the language that they choose to use and write down. If you're the IRS, keep language generic. More savvy people eventually got them to that point. They could still go after phony right wing political groups, just don't write it into the guidelines; address it in a meeting and make sure it's not being recorded.
If they use that language, they'll be accused of editing talking points, and we'll have to move it to the BS Benghazi thread.
In all seriousness, when I incorporated, my accountant advised me not to use "production(s)" in the name of my company, as he said it was a red flag for auditors. It is nice, in theory, to think that names have no impact on IRS judgements, but they do- in a lot of ways that are less sexy than "Tea Party," and they probably always have/will.
I agree.....and obviously organizations with criminal and racist names should be scrutinized. The problem in this case is that a small segment of our society, which are amply represented here, feel that groups that represent Conservatives, Christians, Jews, etc, ARE criminal and/or racist and thats how they justify these recent IRS actions as no big deal.
The language of 501c4 is clear and unambiguous. If you aren't exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, you shouldn't get tax exempt status under 501c4.
You can't be exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, and also be a political group.
Any group with a politicized name, Dem, GOP, Tea Party, Marxist, Communist, Stalinist, Nazi, Anarchist, etc, should get extra scrutiny. It doesn't mean they should necessarily be denied outright, but they should be looked in to more deeply, which is what happened here.
Same goes for groups with religious names. If you're a religious goup, and you want tax exempt status, there's an app for that. It's called 501c3.
As I said earlier, this should be a non-issue. It's an issue because of the money that 501c4's bring in to politics. Both for the Dems and the GOP. It shouldn't be that way.
Road Trip Day #1,,,,on LI and will start digging in the morning,
Let's face the facts here....the groups that were targeted, Tea Party groups, various Religious groups, etc., are groups that people like Bon and MLJ have much contempt for. Whether they will admit it or not they enjoy the fact that these folks were targeted. Their denial of obvious wrongdoings, in the face of resignations and condemnations, show just how biased they are. The sad thing is that this kind of intolerant partisan politics have found their way into mainstream politics on BOTH sides of the fence. No intelligent person can watch these folks make their accusations with a straight face, knowing that the accusers "side" are guilty of the exact thing they are condemning.
I'm used to discussing issues with these type of folks on both the right and the left. The far left folks like MLJ "accuse" me of being on the right and the far right folks accuse me of being on the left......and they say it as if it's an insult, when in reality, if you chalk it up to where it comes from, it's a great compliment.
What's it like not understanding what the word "exclusively" means?
It's bizarre that you blame your lack of understanding of a simple word on people like me.
"I don't know what "exclusively" means, therefore BV and LMJ are unintelligent, biased hacks".
LOL!
Invest in a dictionary, pal.
I'm also still waiting for you to cite the law that makes this "flat out criminal", as you suggested.
Those sound like awful organizations, and I wouldn't support them.
But as long as they follow the rules for 501c4 organizations they can call themselves whatever they want.
Again, the language of 501c4 is clear: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
The IRS had no reason to believe that the organizations they targeted were operating outside those rules.
In fact, best I can tell, it was determined that none of them were.
They were targeted because, like you, someone in the government didn't like the sound of the organizations name.
If you and I were interpreting those rules we would define "educational" very differently than the way the IRS did.
But we are not.
Wow. You really miss every single point I was making. It just went way over your head, huh?
Group's names DO matter. Sorry. If you don't think a name of an organization can shed light on the groups purpose, I don't know what to tell you. It's a truly bizarre position that you're holding. You can try to make this about "me", but unlike you, I'm not so naive as to think that a group's name is meaningless.
Group: "Whites in Favor of Murdering All Minorities"
LaserWolf: "That name doesn't mean anything".
Ok.
And, clearly the IRS DID have a reason to target these organizations, most of which were NOT conservative groups. Otherwise they wouldn't have investigated.
This isn't rocket science.
I also don't know why you are bringing up the word "educational", when the operative word of the statute is exclusively.
My position is simple. But you don't understand or reject it.
Likewise yours is simple, but I reject it.
I believe that even offensive, far right wing groups, have a right organize, a right to spread their message, without being singled out for harassment by the government, until they break the law.
I believe that even offensive, far right wing groups, have a right organize, a right to spread their message, without being singled out for harassment by the government, until they break the law.
Well, of course they do. No one is saying they don't, for crying out loud.
What they don't have a RIGHT to, is tax exempt status. That is what this whole issue about.
You can keep erecting strawmen, like your implication that this is about silencing far right wing groups, but they will keep being burned down because that is not what this is about.
This is about tax exempt status, and who does or doesn't qualify for it. The 501c4 law is clear. Here it is, once again: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
You can't be operated "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare", and be a political group (far right, left, moderate, Nazi, etc.) at the same time.
"Exclusively" has a definition. You don't get to make one up for it.
ex??clu??sive??ly
Adverb
To the exclusion of others; only; solely.
I believe that even offensive, far right wing groups, have a right organize, a right to spread their message, without being singled out for harassment by the government, until they break the law.
Well, of course they do. No one is saying they don't, for crying out loud.
What they don't have a RIGHT to, is tax exempt status. That is what this whole issue about.
You can keep erecting strawmen, like your implication that this is about silencing far right wing groups, but they will keep being burned down because that is not what this is about.
This is about tax exempt status, and who does or doesn't qualify for it. The 501c4 law is clear. Here it is, once again: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
You can't be operated "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare", and be a political group (far right, left, moderate, Nazi, etc.) at the same time.
"Exclusively" has a definition. You don't get to make one up for it.
ex??clu??sive??ly
Adverb
To the exclusion of others; only; solely.
You can't be exclusively one thing, AND also be something else.
I am sure you are right about the wording of the law and how the law should be interpreted.
I would love to see the law interpreted the way you are saying.
No Crossroads GPS, or other organizations hiding political donations.
Believe me, I am on your side.
In addition to indirectly providing support for the creation of super PACs, Citizens United allowed incorporated 501(c)(4) public advocacy groups (such as the National Rifle Association or Sierra Club, or the group Citizens United itself) and trade associations to make expenditures in political races.
I am not saying it is a good thing.
I disagree with you when you say
What they don't have a RIGHT to, is tax exempt status. That is what this whole issue about.
They do, under Citizen United, have a right to TES.
What this whole issue is about is abuse of power.
They do, under Citizen United, have a right to TES.
What this whole issue is about is abuse of power.
No, they do not.
501c4 is explicit as to who qualfiies for tax exempt status under 501c4
Citizen's United did nothing to change this. Can you point to passage in the opinion that destroyed 501c4?
Edit. Nevermind Laser, I'll look myself.
That is a good passage you post, and it's worth looking into. Thanks.
--Double edit--upon (brief) review, I stand by my position that Citizen's United did not establish a right for political groups to have tax exempt status under 501c4. It did, however, allow persons and groups to donate an unlimited amount of money to 501c4s, and reaffirmed a 501c4s right to not have to disclose where the money is coming from.
Another issue is that for a long time, the word "exclusively" in 501c4, has been interpreted to mean "primarily", which is a very fluid term (50.1% can be 'primarily), and NOT what "exclusively" means at all.
Another issue is that for a long time, the word "exclusively" in 501c4, has been interpreted to mean "primarily", which is a very fluid term (50.1% can be 'primarily.
Which appears to be in conflict with this statement.
Bon Vivant said:
"Exclusively" has a definition. You don't get to make one up for it.
With lawyers and bureaucrats definitions have little meaning.
Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.
President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an "independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.
But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.
Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS did exactly what the president of the United States said was the right and honorable thing to do. "He put a target on our backs, and he's now going to blame the people who are shooting at us?" asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.
Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been "on the wrong side of the law."
This was the Obama version of the phone call???put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.
Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.
The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000. That figure doesn't account for what the president's vilification has done to his business and reputation.
The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's strategy???one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a telephone; he had a megaphone.
The same threat was made to conservative groups that might dare play in the election. As early as January 2010, Mr. Obama would, in his state of the union address, cast aspersions on the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, claiming that it "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" (read conservative groups).
The president derided "tea baggers." Vice President Joe Biden compared them to "terrorists." In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama raised the specter that these groups represented nefarious interests that were perverting elections. "Nobody knows who's paying for these ads," he warned. "We don't know where this money is coming from," he intoned.
In case the IRS missed his point, he raised the threat of illegality: "All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."
Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as close as it gets. Especially as top congressional Democrats were putting in their own versions of phone calls, sending letters to the IRS that accused it of having "failed to address" the "problem" of groups that were "improperly engaged" in campaigns. Because guess who controls that "independent" agency's budget?
The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders???openly, for the world to see. In his Tuesday press grilling, no question agitated White House Press Secretary Jay Carney more than the one that got to the heart of the matter: Given the president's "animosity" toward Citizens United, might he have "appreciated or wanted the IRS to be looking and scrutinizing those . . ." Mr. Carney cut off the reporter with "That's a preposterous assertion."
Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is "outraged" and "angry" that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to "operate with absolute integrity." Even when he does not.
You mean, this guy was one of a nearly 1.5 million people that were audited in 2012?
OMG!!!!!
CONSPIRACY!!!!
Even Mitt Romney was audited by the IRS. He didn't whine about it.
This guy from Idaho? Cries like a baby.
Go figure.
From the WSJ article posted:
"Mr. Obama would, in his state of the union address, cast aspersions on the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, claiming that it "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" (read conservative groups)."
This isn't a "claim", this is a fact. If the WSJ is going to write misleading articles, and label facts as mere "claims", why should they be taken seriously? I also didn't get the memo that all special interests were conservative groups, as the WSJ "claims".
complete dismissal of something like three audits within four months for someone who has been in business for a while without previously being audited is ludicrous
and all of the OMG BUT THEY WERE APPROVED ANY WAY BLAH BLAH BALH talk in this thread completely ignores the very real costs highlighted here:
The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000. That figure doesn't account for what the president's vilification has done to his business and reputation.
most smaller organizations would be unable to afford representation at all and would likely end their applications right there. and a delay of even a few months during an election cycle is crucial
complete dismissal of something like three audits within four months for someone who has been in business for a while without previously being audited is ludicrous
and all of the OMG BUT THEY WERE APPROVED ANY WAY BLAH BLAH BALH talk in this thread completely ignores the very real costs highlighted here:
The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000. That figure doesn't account for what the president's vilification has done to his business and reputation.
most smaller organizations would be unable to afford representation at all and would likely end their applications right there. and a delay of even a few months during an election cycle is crucial
People get audited. That's life.
The President can't direct who gets audited by the IRS. That's the law.
It seems like you're leaving out the possiblilty that VanderSloot had some irregularities on his filings. Why are you doing that?
I mean, you don't even have the first clue about what his filings indicate, but here you are screaming "CONSPIRACY!".
i did not and the article i posted did not say that the president directed the IRS. why do you keep bringing that up?
i said nothing about a conspiracy. you're the one that is completely unwilling to even entertain the thought that something is even suspicious; let alone something wrong occurred. i am merely saying that it seems like much more than a coincidence that dude gets called out by obama and audited multiple times in the months following when he's never been audited before.
i did not and the article i posted did not say that the president directed the IRS. why do you keep bringing that up?
i said nothing about a conspiracy. you're the one that is completely unwilling to even entertain the thought that something is even suspicious; let alone something wrong occurred. i am merely saying that it seems like much more than a coincidence that dude gets called out by obama and audited multiple times in the months following when he's never been audited before.
Now you're just being dishonest.
The article you posted, and are currently defending, says this:
"Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny."
"The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's strategy???one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a telephone; he had a megaphone. "
"Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as close as it gets."
"The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders???openly, for the world to see."
The article alleges conspiracy, you defend it and the claims it makes.
Unless you know the first thing about the contents of VanderSloot's filing, you are in no position to allege impropriety on the part of the IRS.
People, to the tune of 1.5 million of them, get audited every year. Some are Republicans, some are Democrats. Deal with it.
How many vocal Obama supporters were audited by the IRS in 2012? Have you even bothered to find out?
Patrick, instead of getting outraged about rich dude being OOP a measly 80g, how about something more worthwhile, like being locked up in Gitmo for untold years with no trial?
Kthxbai
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
skel said:
Patrick, instead of getting outraged about rich dude being OOP a measly 80g, how about something more worthwhile, like being locked up in Gitmo for untold years with no trial?
Unless you know the first thing about the contents of VanderSloot's filing, you are in no position to allege impropriety on the part of the IRS.
Fuck, we can both play this shit. You're parading around that they were within their duties investigating groups (through profiling techniques) without knowing their standards for investigating. We both don't have all the facts but I'm pointing out suspicious coincidences and not drawing absolute conclusions like you are.
People, to the tune of 1.5 million of them, get audited every year. Some are Republicans, some are Democrats. Deal with it.
How many vocal Obama supporters were audited by the IRS in 2012? Have you even bothered to find out?
What does this have to do with the IRS admitting that they improperly targeted groups of people for investigation? Injustices to minorities don't matter?
Patrick, instead of getting outraged about rich dude being OOP a measly 80g, how about something more worthwhile, like being locked up in Gitmo for untold years with no trial?
Kthxbai
Where's the outrage? I honestly wanted to know Soulstrut's opinion on this but didn't expect the level of deniability would reach these levels.
Everytime Gitmo has been brought up on this board there's already a scripted apologist bullshit response blaming shit on someone else. You know this.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Unless you know the first thing about the contents of VanderSloot's filing, you are in no position to allege impropriety on the part of the IRS.
Fuck, we can both play this shit. You're parading around that they were within their duties investigating groups (through profiling techniques) without knowing their standards for investigating. We both don't have all the facts but I'm pointing out suspicious coincidences and not drawing absolute conclusions like you are.
People, to the tune of 1.5 million of them, get audited every year. Some are Republicans, some are Democrats. Deal with it.
How many vocal Obama supporters were audited by the IRS in 2012? Have you even bothered to find out?
What does this have to do with the IRS admitting that they improperly targeted groups of people for investigation? Injustices to minorities don't matter?
No, we can't both play this shit, since I'm not the one howling about improper screening of VanderSloot. You are.
You're not pointing out ANY suspcious coincidences at all. Not unless you know anything about the contents of his filings. Which you don't.
Are you changing to the subject back to the targeting of groups (that happened to both GOP, Dem, and non-political organizations), or are we still only talking about VanderSloot? Just let me know, KThanX.
The article you posted claims Obama ordered the IRS to investigate VanderSloot. There is no evidence of this, because it didn't happen, yet you defend it.
Some guy from Idaho crying about being audited, when 1.5 million other people WERE ALSO AUDITED, is a real snoozer absent evidence of something else. There is no evidence except his whining, which you are buying hook, line and sinker.
VanderSloot could easily buttress his claim of improper investigation by simply releasing his filings that were audited, and independent persons could then evaluate whether an audit was warranted.
It's more than a coincidence that he hasn't done that. You ignore that because you love the conspiracies.
You have no facts. You have "suspicions" and "coincidences". Great.
The WSJ article is not journalism.
It is an opinion piece.
If WSJ published it as news, and from the web site it looks like they did, it is to WSJ's shame.
But we all know they have none.
I have said from the start that targeting groups with specific words in their name was wrong.
But not half as wrong as that "article".
This shows what methods they used to improperly target select groups. It does not show how they were supposed to properly conduct their jobs and screen applicants. This is pretty interesting though:
They created a spreadsheet of group names and activities to watch, called a ???be on the lookout??? list, or BOLO, borrowing jargon used by police. The list soon included 40 groups, including 22 with ???tea party??? in their names.
No bias there, right?
You're not pointing out ANY suspcious coincidences at all. Not unless you know anything about the contents of his filings. Which you don't.
Do you know what the word coincidence means?
The article you posted claims Obama ordered the IRS to investigate VanderSloot. There is no evidence of this, because it didn't happen, yet you defend it.
No, it doesn't say that he ordered anyone. It does however say that he would be totally full of shit if he didn't think that publicly calling out and suggesting people were guilty of things would have no influence on others. I've not defended anyone claiming Obama directly ordering anyone because there's zero evidence of that. Continue reading into things and putting words into my mouth though.
Please let me know if you're going to continue to blatantly mischaracterize things I post and refuse to acknowledge things that don't further your argument. Don't have time for that.
You really only chiming in on this thread just for that? Come on, I know you're better than that.
The IRS targets small businesses over big ones
Easier to shakedown
they target rich individuals over average wage earners
More money from shaking them down
If someone airs something negatively about me and a bunch of shit that has never happened to me occurs after, I'd be a gullible moron to completely attribute it to "WELL YOU KNOW THESE GUYS WERE PROBABLY JUST DOING THEIR JOBS, NOTHING SUSPICIOUS HERE".
Comments
Let's face the facts here....the groups that were targeted, Tea Party groups, various Religious groups, etc., are groups that people like Bon and MLJ have much contempt for. Whether they will admit it or not they enjoy the fact that these folks were targeted. Their denial of obvious wrongdoings, in the face of resignations and condemnations, show just how biased they are. The sad thing is that this kind of intolerant partisan politics have found their way into mainstream politics on BOTH sides of the fence. No intelligent person can watch these folks make their accusations with a straight face, knowing that the accusers "side" are guilty of the exact thing they are condemning.
I'm used to discussing issues with these type of folks on both the right and the left. The far left folks like MLJ "accuse" me of being on the right and the far right folks accuse me of being on the left......and they say it as if it's an insult, when in reality, if you chalk it up to where it comes from, it's a great compliment.
I agree.....and obviously organizations with criminal and racist names should be scrutinized. The problem in this case is that a small segment of our society, which are amply represented here, feel that groups that represent Conservatives, Christians, Jews, etc, ARE criminal and/or racist and thats how they justify these recent IRS actions as no big deal.
b/w
riding for profiling techniques that have no statistical evidence while denouncing the same shit when it's applied to whatever you ride for is lol
You can't be exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, and also be a political group.
Any group with a politicized name, Dem, GOP, Tea Party, Marxist, Communist, Stalinist, Nazi, Anarchist, etc, should get extra scrutiny. It doesn't mean they should necessarily be denied outright, but they should be looked in to more deeply, which is what happened here.
Same goes for groups with religious names. If you're a religious goup, and you want tax exempt status, there's an app for that. It's called 501c3.
As I said earlier, this should be a non-issue. It's an issue because of the money that 501c4's bring in to politics. Both for the Dems and the GOP. It shouldn't be that way.
What's it like not understanding what the word "exclusively" means?
It's bizarre that you blame your lack of understanding of a simple word on people like me.
"I don't know what "exclusively" means, therefore BV and LMJ are unintelligent, biased hacks".
LOL!
Invest in a dictionary, pal.
I'm also still waiting for you to cite the law that makes this "flat out criminal", as you suggested.
My position is simple. But you don't understand or reject it.
Likewise yours is simple, but I reject it.
I believe that even offensive, far right wing groups, have a right organize, a right to spread their message, without being singled out for harassment by the government, until they break the law.
Well, of course they do. No one is saying they don't, for crying out loud.
What they don't have a RIGHT to, is tax exempt status. That is what this whole issue about.
You can keep erecting strawmen, like your implication that this is about silencing far right wing groups, but they will keep being burned down because that is not what this is about.
This is about tax exempt status, and who does or doesn't qualify for it. The 501c4 law is clear. Here it is, once again: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
You can't be operated "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare", and be a political group (far right, left, moderate, Nazi, etc.) at the same time.
"Exclusively" has a definition. You don't get to make one up for it.
ex??clu??sive??ly
Adverb
To the exclusion of others; only; solely.
Synonym
solely - only - entirely - merely - alone - purely
You can't be exclusively one thing, AND also be something else.
You mean, if my reasoning is that the law should be followed, then I shouldn't be surprised if people don't take me seriously?
Looks like I can think about not taking you seriously from here on out.
I am sure you are right about the wording of the law and how the law should be interpreted.
I would love to see the law interpreted the way you are saying.
No Crossroads GPS, or other organizations hiding political donations.
Believe me, I am on your side.
But even though I agree with you the Supreme Court appears not to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
I am not saying it is a good thing.
I disagree with you when you say
They do, under Citizen United, have a right to TES.
What this whole issue is about is abuse of power.
No, they do not.
501c4 is explicit as to who qualfiies for tax exempt status under 501c4
Citizen's United did nothing to change this. Can you point to passage in the opinion that destroyed 501c4?
Edit. Nevermind Laser, I'll look myself.
That is a good passage you post, and it's worth looking into. Thanks.
--Double edit--upon (brief) review, I stand by my position that Citizen's United did not establish a right for political groups to have tax exempt status under 501c4. It did, however, allow persons and groups to donate an unlimited amount of money to 501c4s, and reaffirmed a 501c4s right to not have to disclose where the money is coming from.
.http://nonprofitlaw.proskauer.com/2010/03/15/does-the-citizens-united-decision-affect-not-for-profit-organizations/
Another issue is that for a long time, the word "exclusively" in 501c4, has been interpreted to mean "primarily", which is a very fluid term (50.1% can be 'primarily), and NOT what "exclusively" means at all.
Which appears to be in conflict with this statement.
With lawyers and bureaucrats definitions have little meaning.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578487332636180800.html?mod=trending_now_1
You mean, this guy was one of a nearly 1.5 million people that were audited in 2012?
OMG!!!!!
CONSPIRACY!!!!
Even Mitt Romney was audited by the IRS. He didn't whine about it.
This guy from Idaho? Cries like a baby.
Go figure.
From the WSJ article posted:
"Mr. Obama would, in his state of the union address, cast aspersions on the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, claiming that it "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" (read conservative groups)."
This isn't a "claim", this is a fact. If the WSJ is going to write misleading articles, and label facts as mere "claims", why should they be taken seriously? I also didn't get the memo that all special interests were conservative groups, as the WSJ "claims".
and all of the OMG BUT THEY WERE APPROVED ANY WAY BLAH BLAH BALH talk in this thread completely ignores the very real costs highlighted here:
most smaller organizations would be unable to afford representation at all and would likely end their applications right there. and a delay of even a few months during an election cycle is crucial
People get audited. That's life.
The President can't direct who gets audited by the IRS. That's the law.
It seems like you're leaving out the possiblilty that VanderSloot had some irregularities on his filings. Why are you doing that?
I mean, you don't even have the first clue about what his filings indicate, but here you are screaming "CONSPIRACY!".
Get a grip.
i said nothing about a conspiracy. you're the one that is completely unwilling to even entertain the thought that something is even suspicious; let alone something wrong occurred. i am merely saying that it seems like much more than a coincidence that dude gets called out by obama and audited multiple times in the months following when he's never been audited before.
Now you're just being dishonest.
The article you posted, and are currently defending, says this:
"Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny."
"The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's strategy???one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a telephone; he had a megaphone. "
"Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as close as it gets."
"The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders???openly, for the world to see."
The article alleges conspiracy, you defend it and the claims it makes.
Unless you know the first thing about the contents of VanderSloot's filing, you are in no position to allege impropriety on the part of the IRS.
People, to the tune of 1.5 million of them, get audited every year. Some are Republicans, some are Democrats. Deal with it.
How many vocal Obama supporters were audited by the IRS in 2012? Have you even bothered to find out?
Kthxbai
^^^Drone strike!
What does this have to do with the IRS admitting that they improperly targeted groups of people for investigation? Injustices to minorities don't matter?
Everytime Gitmo has been brought up on this board there's already a scripted apologist bullshit response blaming shit on someone else. You know this.
No, we can't both play this shit, since I'm not the one howling about improper screening of VanderSloot. You are.
As to the IRS standards of investigating, that's public knowledge, and has been put out thoroughly and exhaustively since this story broke. Sorry you missed it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-irs-seeded-the-clouds-in-2010-for-a-political-deluge-three-years-later/2013/05/19/b707d940-bf10-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html . I do, in fact, understand what they were at the time.
You're not pointing out ANY suspcious coincidences at all. Not unless you know anything about the contents of his filings. Which you don't.
Are you changing to the subject back to the targeting of groups (that happened to both GOP, Dem, and non-political organizations), or are we still only talking about VanderSloot? Just let me know, KThanX.
The article you posted claims Obama ordered the IRS to investigate VanderSloot. There is no evidence of this, because it didn't happen, yet you defend it.
Some guy from Idaho crying about being audited, when 1.5 million other people WERE ALSO AUDITED, is a real snoozer absent evidence of something else. There is no evidence except his whining, which you are buying hook, line and sinker.
VanderSloot could easily buttress his claim of improper investigation by simply releasing his filings that were audited, and independent persons could then evaluate whether an audit was warranted.
It's more than a coincidence that he hasn't done that. You ignore that because you love the conspiracies.
You have no facts. You have "suspicions" and "coincidences". Great.
It is an opinion piece.
If WSJ published it as news, and from the web site it looks like they did, it is to WSJ's shame.
But we all know they have none.
I have said from the start that targeting groups with specific words in their name was wrong.
But not half as wrong as that "article".
I would hardly classify me posting the contents of an article and bolding several paragraphs howling but project away bro
This shows what methods they used to improperly target select groups. It does not show how they were supposed to properly conduct their jobs and screen applicants. This is pretty interesting though:
No bias there, right?
Do you know what the word coincidence means?
No, it doesn't say that he ordered anyone. It does however say that he would be totally full of shit if he didn't think that publicly calling out and suggesting people were guilty of things would have no influence on others. I've not defended anyone claiming Obama directly ordering anyone because there's zero evidence of that. Continue reading into things and putting words into my mouth though.
Please let me know if you're going to continue to blatantly mischaracterize things I post and refuse to acknowledge things that don't further your argument. Don't have time for that.
they target rich individuals over average wage earners
one of the richest men in his state getting audited for the first time in 30 years is not news.
like I said, "cool story bro"
Easier to shakedown
More money from shaking them down
If someone airs something negatively about me and a bunch of shit that has never happened to me occurs after, I'd be a gullible moron to completely attribute it to "WELL YOU KNOW THESE GUYS WERE PROBABLY JUST DOING THEIR JOBS, NOTHING SUSPICIOUS HERE".