This is not directly related to the recent news out concerning the IRS examinations of 501c(4) applications, but this is nevertheless an interesting tidbit that was on the Propublica.org site. " 5. Most of the money spent on elections by social welfare nonprofits supports Republicans. Of the more than $256 million spent by social welfare nonprofits on ads in the 2012 elections, at least 80 percent came from conservative groups, according to FEC figures tallied by the Center for Responsive Politics. None came from the Tea Party groups with applications flagged by the IRS. Instead, a few big conservative groups were largely responsible. Crossroads GPS, which this week said it believes it is among the conservative groups "targeted" by the IRS, spent more than $70 million in federal races in 2012. Americans for Prosperity, the social welfare nonprofit launched by the conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, spent more than $36 million. American Future Fund spent more than $25 million. Americans for Tax Reform spent almost $16 million. American Action Network spent almost $12 million. Besides Crossroads GPS, each of those groups has applied to the IRS and been recognized as tax-exempt. (You can look at their applications here.) All of those groups spent more than the largest liberal social welfare nonprofit, the League of Conservation Voters, which spent about $11 million on 2012 federal races. The next biggest group, Patriot Majority USA, spent more than $7 million. Planned Parenthood spent $6.5 million. VoteVets.org spent more than $3 million. None of those figures include the tens of millions of dollars spent by groups on certain ads that run months before an election that are not reported to the FEC. 6. Some social welfare groups promised in their applications, under penalty of perjury, that they wouldnât get involved in elections. Then they did just that. Much of the attention when it comes to Tea Party nonprofits has focused on their applications and how the IRS determines whether a group qualifies for social welfare status. As part of our reporting on dark money in 2012, ProPublica looked at more than 100 applications for IRS recognition. One thing we noted again and again: Groups sometimes tell the IRS that they are not going to spend money on elections, receive IRS recognition, and then turn around and spend money on elections The application to be recognized as a social welfare nonprofit, known as a 1024 Form, explicitly asks a group whether it has spent or plans to spend âany money attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any person to any Federal, state, or local public office or to an office in a political organization.â The American Future Fund, a conservative nonprofit that would go on to spend millions of dollars on campaign ads, checked âNoâin answer to that question in 2008. The very same day the group submitted its application, it uploaded this ad to its YouTube account: Even before mailing its application to the IRS saying it would not spend money on elections in 2010, the Alliance for Americaâs Future was running TV ads supporting Republican candidates for governor in Nevada and Florida. It also had given $133,000 to two political committees directed by Mary Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president. Another example of this is the Government Integrity Fund, a conservative nonprofit that ran ads in last yearâs U.S. Senate race in Ohio. Its application was approved after it told the IRS that it would not spend money on politics. The group went on to do just that. " I don't want to do your work for you, but as a suggestion for those few interested in "truth" you might go to the NPR news site for June 26th. That's where, for example, I found this: "Democrats Want Answers On 'Progressives' Targeted By IRS(96) Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., listens as ousted IRS Chief Steve Miller and J. Russell George, Treasury inspector general for tax administration, testify during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on May 17. June 25, 2013 Democrats say Tea Party groups weren't the only ones being targeted by the IRS. And they have released documents that show "progressives" was on the lists of terms that IRS employees used to decide which groups got extra scrutiny. That wasn't mentioned in the IRS inspector general's report. On All Things ConsideredPlaylist " There is a link there that I think allows you to replay their broadcast.
This is not directly related to the recent news out concerning the IRS examinations of 501c(4) applications, but this is nevertheless an interesting tidbit that was on the Propublica.org site. " 5. Most of the money spent on elections by social welfare nonprofits supports Republicans. Of the more than $256 million spent by social welfare nonprofits on ads in the 2012 elections, at least 80 percent came from conservative groups, according to FEC figures tallied by the Center for Responsive Politics. None came from the Tea Party groups with applications flagged by the IRS. Instead, a few big conservative groups were largely responsible. Crossroads GPS, which this week said it believes it is among the conservative groups "targeted" by the IRS, spent more than $70 million in federal races in 2012. Americans for Prosperity, the social welfare nonprofit launched by the conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, spent more than $36 million. American Future Fund spent more than $25 million. Americans for Tax Reform spent almost $16 million. American Action Network spent almost $12 million. Besides Crossroads GPS, each of those groups has applied to the IRS and been recognized as tax-exempt. (You can look at their applications here.) All of those groups spent more than the largest liberal social welfare nonprofit, the League of Conservation Voters, which spent about $11 million on 2012 federal races. The next biggest group, Patriot Majority USA, spent more than $7 million. Planned Parenthood spent $6.5 million. VoteVets.org spent more than $3 million. None of those figures include the tens of millions of dollars spent by groups on certain ads that run months before an election that are not reported to the FEC. 6. Some social welfare groups promised in their applications, under penalty of perjury, that they wouldnât get involved in elections. Then they did just that. Much of the attention when it comes to Tea Party nonprofits has focused on their applications and how the IRS determines whether a group qualifies for social welfare status. As part of our reporting on dark money in 2012, ProPublica looked at more than 100 applications for IRS recognition. One thing we noted again and again: Groups sometimes tell the IRS that they are not going to spend money on elections, receive IRS recognition, and then turn around and spend money on elections The application to be recognized as a social welfare nonprofit, known as a 1024 Form, explicitly asks a group whether it has spent or plans to spend âany money attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any person to any Federal, state, or local public office or to an office in a political organization.â The American Future Fund, a conservative nonprofit that would go on to spend millions of dollars on campaign ads, checked âNoâin answer to that question in 2008. The very same day the group submitted its application, it uploaded this ad to its YouTube account: Even before mailing its application to the IRS saying it would not spend money on elections in 2010, the Alliance for Americaâs Future was running TV ads supporting Republican candidates for governor in Nevada and Florida. It also had given $133,000 to two political committees directed by Mary Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president. Another example of this is the Government Integrity Fund, a conservative nonprofit that ran ads in last yearâs U.S. Senate race in Ohio. Its application was approved after it told the IRS that it would not spend money on politics. The group went on to do just that. " I don't want to do your work for you, but as a suggestion for those few interested in "truth" you might go to the NPR news site for June 26th. That's where, for example, I found this: "Democrats Want Answers On 'Progressives' Targeted By IRS(96) Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., listens as ousted IRS Chief Steve Miller and J. Russell George, Treasury inspector general for tax administration, testify during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on May 17. June 25, 2013 Democrats say Tea Party groups weren't the only ones being targeted by the IRS. And they have released documents that show "progressives" was on the lists of terms that IRS employees used to decide which groups got extra scrutiny. That wasn't mentioned in the IRS inspector general's report. On All Things ConsideredPlaylist " There is a link there that I think allows you to replay their broadcast. This might work: http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=195599362&m=195628170
Lucrum, it seems to be. You'll have to go to their website and judge for yourself. I have noticed for example in the case of the recent investigation of the IRS they have an investigation of IRS problems in the Cincinnati Office in addition to their investigation of groups applying for 501c(4) status. It looks like it's as objective as you will find, but I suppose human nature precludes perfect objectivity in anything involving judgement --certainly anything involving opinion. Propublica consists of a group of journalists that say they are interested in investigative reporting. They seem to believe that investigative reporting is a dying art that is still needed. They appear to scrupulously avoid opinion. We have all assumed that the Inspector General was looking at the way the IRS was going about screening groups applying for 501c(4) status in general, and our opinions were based on that presumption. It now turns out that the I.G. wasn't doing that at all. They were just looking at IRS investigations of Tea Party type applications for 501c(4) status, and not any others. This in my opinion was idiotic, and changes everything. The I.G. said, well Issa only asked me to look at treatment of Tea Party groups, so that's what we did. Fine, but it misled everyone who was assuming, quite naturally, that Tea Party Groups were being singled out by the IRS. In actual fact the IRS had a list of red flags that they looked for in applications, and those flags included stuff that would have triggered a more thorough consideration of applications from both left and right wing groups. It turned out that the IRS also scrutinized suspect left wing, i.e. "progressive," groups as well, but there were fewer of them applying. We were all misled because Issa and the I.G. just focused on Tea Party type political groups claiming to be social welfare organizations. This whole business has just been ridiculous. But it did turn up some serious problems in IRS procedures. So some good will perhaps come out of it.
And yet you still cant name a single company on the left that actually had to wait as long as any of the tea party ones did to get approval, i mean surely with the IRS being unbiased on this one, you would have a line up of progressive groups trying to bail out obama and the supposedly clean IRS on thjis one. Give your head a shake. Oh, and LOL at propublica supposedly being an un biased news source, youre a funny guy piezoe.
Piezoe, you are a loon. America has a fifteen second attention span, and you know it. The msm isn't reporting on it anymore, nothing has come of it, and nothing will happen. If this administration were republican, they'd be in handcuffs as we speak, and you know that too. Today's democrat is nothing more than a legalized outlaw, nothing more.