it's beginning to seem as if the whole IRS deal is not what it seems. And they even went after a Democratic group. I wonder how many others? Point being, if you make an even limited effort to understand the law relating to 501 (c) (4)s you can easily see why such groups (of both parties) should get some scrutiny. Now I'm waiting to see to what extent only Republican groups were targeted. My guess is, it switches back and forth depending on which party is in power. Is that right? Of course not. But the Republican squeals du jour seem more than a little self serving.
I was under the impression all 501(c)(4) were heavily scrutinised.
Although, I wonder how much scrutiny MoveOn.org faced? http://front.moveon.org/
MoveOn.org Civic Action is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on important national issues. MoveOn.org Political Action is a federal political committee which primarily helps members elect candidates who reflect our values through a variety of activities aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election. MoveOn.org Political Action and MoveOn.org Civic Action are separate organizations
I'm sure the disclaimer keeps it all legal
which inexplicably implies that.
President Obama is the one who said the IRS targeting was "inexcusable":
"The misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable. It's inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it and I am angry about it," the president said in a brief prepared statement. "I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency—but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives."
President Obama was the one who thru Mr. Lew fired the Acting IRS Commish and we can assume pushed the new Commish to ask for lois Lerner's resignation.
Minority Nancy Pelosi has described the IRS targeting as "wrong but not illegal" though she blames it on Bush.
Democrats from both the House and Senate have denounced the IRS targeting.
Any characterization of this as Republican motivated hype is a bit silly in light of the facts, don't you think? This is not a partisan dispute
No one disputes that organizations seeking tax exempt status deserve “some scrutiny.” It is the type of scrutiny applied that - by name instead of activity- is at issue here.
First,you have to understand that 70% of tax exempt applications are closed on initial review without requests for further information and usually within 121 days. Let’s look at the other 30%.
From May of 2010 to June 2011 the IRS searched for tax exempt applications that had the words “Tea Party” in the name of the applicant. So, for example, an application from the “Ohio Tea Party” would get pulled for further scrutiny, even if the content of the application was entirely apolitical. During this 13 month period, 100% of the Tea Party applications got pulled. Did they search for Obamacare Forever, Inc? Nope. Just Tea Party.
Were a few liberal and/or Democratic- themed applications also pulled? Sure but usually bc of the content of the application not the name of the applicant.
In June 2011 they added the more ambiguous Patriots and 9/12 Project and other political sounding names to their name search. But again 100% of Tea Party applications got pulled until they stopped the practice in early 2012, regardless of the apolitical content of the application.
If your application got pulled, you got placed in the IRS version of Guantanamo Bay. Your application was held up for 18 months and counting. You were then given questionaires that among things asked the name of your donors. If you know anything about forming tax exempt status organizations, you know that delay is usually fatal – if you don’t get that 501 status, donations to your organization are not tax deductible to the donor. In short, you get little money.
According to the IG audit, it is improper to target “ specific groups applying for tax-exempt status based on their names or policy positions.” Instead, the IRS is supposed to develop criteria based on tax-exempt laws and Treasury Regulations.” These laws and regs focus on actual activity.
So the targeting by name instead of actual activity was contrary to the law. And the Republicans can legitimately complain about name-based screening that for nearly two years focused on the Tea Party, even though a few Democratic groups got nailed as well
Fact 1) None of these organizations should have filed as (c)(4)'s. They should have filed as 527's. The only reason to file as a (c)(4) is so you don't have to list your donors. The purpose of this in the law is allow social welfare organizations to have an easy time doing their job.
Fact 2) There is NO requirement that any (c)(4) file with the IRS.
In other words, the IRS was RIGHT to "target" political organizations seeking (c)(4) status. The scandal isn't that they "targeted" anyone. The scandal is that they granted (c)(4) status to political organizations. None of them should have been given (c)(4) status.
trying to dismiss obviously illegal behavior just because you don'y like the 527 vs. C4.
COME ON, I KNOW YOU ARE MORE INTELLIGENT THAN THAT.
I real scandal is an organization with the power of the IRS went political. THAT IS THE SCANDAL AND YOU KNOW IT!!
The 527 vs. c4 is a totally different issue. Don't try to forgive one set of bad behavior by bringing up another.
the Dept of Justice, the print media, the tv media, the internet media, and even the IRS itself are wrong that this is a scandal.
Remember that so far we have not even had a completed investigation into the scandal. The IG 's report was only an "audit" which means he did not haul people in under oath and make them testify. So given that we have the firing of the head of the IRS and a top official taking the Fifth after only a few days of hearings, I think that is a pretty impressive iceberg of a scandal.
Will the next head to fall be Sarah Ingram, the IRS offficial in charge of the tax exempt division from 2010 to 2012 who left after being promoted to an important position overseeing Obamacare? She's already lawyered up. Bet she won't do an opening statement (I'm completely innocent but on advice of counsel I'm taking the Fifth")
But give Willy some credit - you have got to admire a guy who is not intimidated by the facts.
Yes, part of what I meant is that none of these groups deserve c4 status. The only thing that may we wrong here is if only right wing groups were targeted. And I am increasingly doubtful that was true.