Some of you, ya'all decide which ones, are taking what should be a legitimate questioning of IRS procedure in handling 501c(4) applicants, but isn't, and buying into the House Republican Dog and Pony Show hook line and sinker. In fact, this business of allowing, in violation of the Statute, political organizations on both sides of the political spectrum to file under 501c(4) has been going on for years under both democrat and republican presidents -- it came to a head last year, and this, for two reasons: 1. The IRS was inundated with an onslaught of application the likes of which they had not previously encountered, and 2. The Republican House decided it was an opportune time to score some political points with their naive constituents in the populist movement. The real issue is this: Why should any of these organizations qualify under 501c(4)? The only thing this does is make the pollitcal process even more opaque. The goal of all of us, if we believe in democracy and open government that is responsive to the people and not just to monied interests, should be to get dark money out of politics. To this end, it is essential that the suits against the IRS seeking to force the IRS to follow the Statute succeed. The suits filed by organizations applying under 501c(4) are made frivolous by their dependence on an incorrect supposition. The IRS used review criteria that violated the Statute. Thus the IRS would have been committing an illegal act to approve the plaintiffs applications. IRS must not settle these suits out of Court, but instead ask the Court to dismiss them. In the case of plaintiffs applications having already been approved, it is impossible for a plaintiff to demonstrate damages from an illegal act by their own hand. The committing of perjury by the plaintiffs is dispositive. The behavior of House politicians, in this instance, has been despicable, and insulting to our intelligence. I fully concur with ProPublica when the say: "...[This IRS business] is just the latest expression of Washington cynicism and its consequencesâ... the talk show hosts and their fellow travelers, and the representatives and senators and officials in the executive branch, arenât really looking for answers here. Theyâre just putting on a show." ______________________ P.S. this 501c(4) business has nothing to do with Citizens United. The issue here is "dark money" and Citizens did not address that. All of these organizations can qualify under section 527, they just can't hide their donors names. And that, "Maw Fella Amuricans," is the intent behind by the Statutes.
a. again you refuse to see the obvious point... if the cops are stopping the tea party speeders on the way to the voting both... but not the progressives..... then real issue is the selective targeting with the intent to suppress the vote. we have statements from IRS officials stating they targeted conservative groups. Your argument about a group being targeted but not having a way to vindicate itself in court is a red herring. Sure I hope they win in court but that is not the gravaman we have here The IRS used its power to target political groups to the benefit of Democrats... that is the issue. That should scare the crap out of anything American. The govt turning on you / us the people. That govt dept should be immediately and swiftly shut down for violation of core American and Constitutional values. b, your issue about wanting to more strict interpretation of the 501 c regs is legit... I agree with you... but that is not this issue... that is a separate issue. The best solution for your issue is to just eliminate the IRS. Our economy will boom and we there wont be any tax write offs at all.
He is just repeating stale talking points. He has posted the same spin from propublica four or five times. The only thing keeping him off ignore is he seems to actually believe it. It's hard to believe anyone could be that dense, but plenty of rich, white people voted for obama twice, so you hate to make assumptions.
It's odd to me that you would consider a bunch of partisan politicians as providing an an accurate and truthful assessment, whereas you would consider ProPublica's investigative journalism as spin? Anyone who looks objectively with an open mind will immediately recognize the Propublica articles as very likely factual and neutral, and the information coming out of the Issa Committee as almost certain to contain a big dose of political spin!
Bad analogy. The analogy is actually that "tea party" in your intended group's name IS "speeding", i.e. drawing excessive attention to yourself, which is why they got "pulled over".
Pie, you just don't get it. Like aaa pointed out, if lunatic, er... left wing groups had been targeted by the IRS under bush, you know the msm would have gone wild, and it would have been a non stop media frenzy claiming he's worse than Nixon.
again you miss the point... the point is a. it was the unlawful targeting that is the the problem b. unequal treatment c. using the IRS for imtimidation d. the IRS working for the Dems e. How far up the chain it went -- if pro dem or pro republican groups were doing something wrong... is a separate issue.
The why is the IRS stonewalling? Why hasn't Obama ordered them to come clean? We already went over propublica, a soros-funded faux investigative group. It's like saying Media Matters is objective. When the Valery Plame bogus scandal erupted, Pres. Bush recognized his adminstration could not believably investigate itself and had a special prosecutor appointed. He bent over backwards to provide transparency. Not Obama. Not Holder. We already know Holder is a documented liar, who is in contempt of congress. Again, what are they hiding if it was all so innocent? As democrats are fond of saying, the charges themselves are so serious they must be fully investigated, regardless of the supporting evidence. Int his case, there happens to be quite a bit of evidence of wrongdoing, beginning with Lois Lerner's admission to that effect.