You're the loon, Mr. Skewedpollsthewarmingisoverthetopscientistssaytheuniverseisfinetunedsmallergovernmentisbetternomatterwhat Guy. âIâm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections. But as long as itâs doable Iâm going to do it. Because I know that guys like Soros have been doing it for years, if not decades.â Sheldon Adelson. Soros Soros Soros. He's dead. Even so, for every one of his kind there are a thousand on the right. Edit: oops, rumors of Soros's demise are exaggerated.
What an ignorant stupid post. But to be expected from your ignorant mind. Unwittingly, you point to your own super left manipulator of American politics who is just one of the crazy leftist uber rich who have been detrimental to America. They have used their millions and billions to try to shape us into a bankrupt, socialist society. Their reasoning stems from their guilt at making so much money off of the people. Not wanting to disperse their own fortune to society they fight to make everyone else to make the payment for them through socialist government. They are hypocrites at the highest magnitude.
Read first: http://www.propublica.org/article/h...lions-on-elections-and-call-it-public-welfare then, these interesting follow-up articles: http://www.propublica.org/article/dark-money-group-spent-on-house-race-then-told-irs-it-didnt http://www.propublica.org/article/what-karl-roves-dark-money-nonprofit-told-the-irs http://www.propublica.org/article/i...ed-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs http://www.propublica.org/article/what-karl-roves-dark-money-nonprofit-told-the-irs Most of the documents released by the IRS to Propublica were in the public domain, just a few were not. I don't think they were intentionally leaked. IRS says it was inadvertent. I'd be interested in your comments after you've read them.
I did read the linked articles. I am not an expert in this area of tax and election law, but I think the articles reach conclusions that are not obviously supported by the facts. The gist of all the articles is that these groups claim in their applications that they will not be involved in electioneering or will devote limited sums to it, yet end up spending substantial amounts. This seems to be how yu concluded they had "perjured" themselves, etc. First, I would note there is no record of any of them being found guilty of anything remotely like that. I concede the wheels of justice grind slowly, but it seems to me when a supposedly responsible group is accusing them of misconduct, they should acknowledge that the IRS has not challenged them. Second, the propublica articles skip over the details of the supposed electioneering expenditures for the most part. They gave a couple of examples, which struck me as having been carefull vetted by lawyers to edge right up to the line but not cross over it. For example, there was an ad about a project in texas being derailed by an endangered spider. The ad attacked environmentalists and referred to a democratic representative as someone they supported, then apparently said âThe best way to stop left-wing extremists from killing jobs is to vote against their hand-picked candidate Pete Gallego.â Now this may sound like electioneering but my guess is they would argue it is not. Generally in election law, if you urge the election or defeat of a named candidate, that is electioneering. Here however, they would argue they are educating the public about creating jobs and the reference to the candidate was incidental, not the primary purpose of the ad. Is it BS? of course, but the tax law is filled with dark corners that are exploited by clever lawyers and accountants. So, in my view, propublica's claims about improper spending my or may not stand up to scrutiny. Likely, the courts will get to decide some of them. The issue of the release of the confidential documents is kind of a litmus test of one's faith in the IRS and this administration. Under normal circumstances, maybe I could believe them, even though it all seems very convenient and suspiciously coincidental. Under the cloud of scandal, which the IRS already apologized for, it seems clearly part of their plan. If it was inadvertent, why didn't they demand the documents back from propublica? If it was all a big mistake, why didn't propublica just return them? Doesn't it strike you as a little suspicious that one of the groups involved was Karl Rove's Crossroads organization, which had raised a ton of money to support Romney?
===================== Mr. Pie; You may want to google A C L J [massive] lawsuit [on behalf of 41 conservative/Christian , Tea Party groups ],against IRS .Its grown from 25+/, to 41 now..... You may ALSO be interested in the IRS offering to settle for $1,000 per group, already, but no thanks says A C L J chief counsel -postage costs per month is $34, 000.. Stay tuned for this IRS scandal growing all the time.
Thanks for taking time to read the Propublica articles. I realized that I "inadvertently," to use IRS speak, duplicated one of the links. Actually what I gave you is only a small sample of the related information on their sight. I just found this which is a link to a list of all the related stories they have done, something like 102 I think. http://www.propublica.org/series/buying-your-vote This one is is interesting: http://www.propublica.org/article/s...tion-of-false-statements-by-dark-money-groups I think this answers your question regarding why isn't the IRS going after these guys that are committing perjury. Apparently the IRS is in the habit of letting this slide. But this guy from Rhode Island is saying if the IRS won't enforce the law then the Justice department should do it. He is asking for yet another investigation! I myself think we should either follow the rules or re-write them in a way that is unambiguous so we can expect them to be followed. You're right about there being a lot of weasel room when it comes to what is political activity. Duke Ellington said he couldn't define Jazz but he knew it when he heard it. Well we may not be able to definitively state what political activity is, but we know it when we see it.
They are undoubtedly gunning for a jury trial, knowing that if they can get "12 good Christian, country bumpkins" in the box they can't lose against the reviled and ungodly IRS, no matter what their arguments. But the whole business could backfire on them if the IRS attorneys are able to slip in even a single atheist ringer, or worse yet for these "Christian," political crackpots, an educated atheist! If they can somehow get the venue changed to rural Idaho, the NRA will weigh in as a "Friend of the Court," and they'll have a lock on the outcome.
The MSM is quick to be satisfied these days. All the administration has to do is say, we're looking into it, or we had nothing to do with it. Oh, OK, get back to us when you find something out. Investigative journalism is a thing of the past, until the next republican scandal that is. Then it's all hands on deck, we must get to the bottom of this. Ya' know, at some point being played for a fool over and over again leads one to believe you actually are a fool. Something those on the left might want to consider.