EvilMonkey

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2013 -> 03:08 PM) My problem with calling this an enormous scandal is that I can't figure out how the IRS can legally do the job it was tasked with. I keep telling people who want to call this a scandal that I'll agree with them as soon as they explain how the IRS could do its job without breaking the law. 501©4 groups are a tax advantaged status granted by the IRS but with the caveat that the groups are not supposed to take advantage of their status to perform political activities. Their "Primary purpose" (note that term, that's what the law says) is supposed to be "Social welfare". They are allowed to spend money on electioneering, but their "Primary purpose" is supposed to be social welfare. Nobody in their right mind believes this is being enforced, because it's become almost impossible to enforce. Crossroads GPS and Priorities USA, the Rove led and Obama led super-PAC associated groups...are 501©4 groups. If you actually believe their primary purpose is anything but campaigning, I have a bridge to sell you. So we have these groups with their status completely murky. "Primary purpose" is apparently so weak that Karl Rove and Obama could drive trucks full of money through the loophole. Normally, the job of determining whether these groups are engaged in electioneering and setting rules to define "primary purpose" should not be the job of the IRS. It's the job of the Federal Elections Commission, a bipartisan group appointed by both parties in Congress supposedly to make those rules. But the FEC has been effectively neutered over the past decade. Congress could also make rules here...but Congress has shut itself down too. The Citizens United case destroyed the text of the law that defined how these groups could operate, and the FEC is a 6 member commission composed of 6 members whose terms have all expired. The FEC is able to operate and do a few things, but basically they've been shut down because the President and Congress won't act to put anyone new on it. So, the people who should be deciding those rules are refusing to do so. Now go to the IRS. These groups start petitioning the IRS for guidance on whether or not they qualify for 501©4 status after the Citizens United case, but there are literally no rules for determining whether or not they qualify. These groups are voluntarily asking the IRS for guidance (guys like Crossroads and Priorities don't need to do so, they can afford their own lawyers). The IRS can't refuse to offer guidance, but it also has zero information about how to judge whether "Tea Party Patriots for taking our country back" is a group dedicated to social welfare or is a group dedicated to electioneering. So yes, the IRS officials probably broke the law by signaling these groups out by name for additional questions...but it's happening because it should never have gotten to that point. The IRS is not the organization that should be making these rules and interpreting "primary purpose" because the IRS shouldn't be singling out specific political groups. The problem is the IRS literally has no option. They can't not offer guidance to groups asking for guidance on their tax status, but they can't single out groups that any reasonable person would say "This is a political group" and start asking whether they're political groups. Congress and the FEC should have fixed this mess a long time ago. Instead, they left it to the IRS to make a literally impossible decision - they have to pick which part of the law they need to ignore. You have brought up Crossroads and Priorities USA more than once, as if these were the only groups around doing what you claim is wrong under these rules. Do you forget about Media Matters for America and its demon spawn Media Matters Action Network? MMAN is a (4) so they can engage in SOME political activity. MMFA is a (3) and is supposed to stay away completely from political activity. I don't see that happening, so you? In fact, the Form 990 for MMFA says: Part I, Question 1. Briefly describe the organization's mission or most significant activities: MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA IS A WEB-BASED NOT-FOR-PROFIT PROGRESSIVE RESEARCH AND INFORMATION CENTER Part III, Question 1. Briefly describe the organization's mission: DEDICATED TO COMPREHENSIVELY MONITORING, ANALYZING, AND CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION IN THE U.S. MEDIA. Yup. Not political at all.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 17, 2013 -> 03:17 PM) well, if they were going after pro-Democrat organizations too that would be different. It appears they only were attacking those whom would be seen as potential political opponents. For example, I heard pro-Obama 501©4's were never hassled. So that is the real scandal here. Using the IRS to attack political opponents. Another key piece of info is that they knew about all this prior to the election, yet chose to stay silent. if they were truly non partisan as they like to pretend, they would have revealed this information when they knew about it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2013 -> 03:21 PM) Here's a couple pro-Democratic groups that received the same letter, one of which actually had the IRS state that its status was denied. I will fully admit that there were more "Tea party" groups that received these letters...but ask yourself this question...how many new "Tea Party" groups attempted to form after 2010 versus how many Democratic groups? http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...in-2010/275985/ There was no overall huge increase in the amount of applicants, so there was no need for short cut screening procedures that singled out one 'side' over another.

Gonna try Dunn for the first time this year.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 16, 2013 -> 09:51 AM) . Landed nobility over history have been particularly anti-redistributive and absolutely deplored any sort of physical work, instead intentionally looking effete. S Um, they were against it................once they got their land from the masses. Until then they had no problem with redistribution, as long as it was slanted in their favor.

Dayan V.

Connor G.

Dayan V.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 14, 2013 -> 10:14 AM) I took greater issue with your dismissively calling it a blog more than calling it liberal because that was just straight-up ignorance. They're not a "liberal blog" but a legitimate investigative journalism organization. As I said, they've partnered with Frontline and NPR for numerous investigations (and, apparently, over 90 other media outlets including 60 Minutes, ABC World News, Business Week, CNN, Frontline, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Newsweek, USA Today, The Washington Post, Huffington Post, MSN Money, MSNBC.com, Politico, Reader's Digest, Salon.com, Slate, and This American Life). Their President and Founder is a former editor for the WSJ. The organization has won two Pulitzer prizes along with dozens of other awards. David Koch funds all sorts of libertarian groups but also gives money to Nature and NOVA; that doesn't make Nature and NOVA libertarian-leaning, does it? edit: and you do realize that ProPublica had requested these 67 applications as part of an investigation into the 501©4's right, that they weren't just sent these things unsolicited? And which 6 did they choose to release date from? (hint: conservative ones)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 14, 2013 -> 08:42 AM) ProPublica isn't a "liberal blog," they're a full-fledged investigative journalism operation that frequently works with NPR and shows like Frontline to produce in-depth and detailed reporting. What happened here was ProPublica asked for 67 applications. The IRS sent them 31. 9 of those were not yet approved and should not have been sent, but could have been sent as soon as they were completed. Not exactly a gigantic scandal there, sounds like a bureaucratic mistake. ProPublica points out that the names associated with the releases are lifelong IRS employees, not political appointments. I've already said a full investigation is appropriate here, but I'm not seeing an "abuse of power" yet, more of a "poor administrative decisions within the IRS." The IRS has a legitimate interest and duty to ensure that groups filing for 501©4 status meet the legal requirements and are not engaged in electioneering. It's not exactly a stretch to imagine that groups self-describing themselves as tea party groups might be skirting that line or going over it (edit: not that they're a bunch of lawbreakers, just that it seems likely they would be engaging in a bit of political advocacy). For example, there's no reasonable way to argue that CrossroadsGPS and Priorities USA are "educational" or "social welfare" entities and not campaign groups, yet they applied for 501©4 status. Bay Area billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler gave $10 million to them, and promise to add that same amount every year. In 2004, Herbert Sandler gave the MoveOn.org Voter Fund $2.5 million, according to the FEC database. The Center for Responsive Politics Web site reports donations of $8.5 million from Herbert and Marion to the 527 group Citizens for a Strong Senate, in the 2004 cycle. CSS was formed by a group of strategists with close ties to former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. American Banker reported in 2005 that Herbert also gave $1 million to the California stem cell initiative and that the pair have also funded the progressive Center for American Progress. Herbert iwas also the chairman of them. While it may not be the DailyKoz, seems like some very strong liberal leanings.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 14, 2013 -> 08:55 AM) The policy was changed when senior officials became aware of it in early 2012, wasn't it? A full investigation beyond the IG's report is probably warranted here. They were aware of it in 2011, and were still denying it in 2012, just now admitting to it in 2013. heads need to roll.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 14, 2013 -> 06:35 AM) It's obvious that they came up with a screening system for 501©4's that was discriminatory in practice but not necessarily in intent. They were getting huge numbers of applications for these groups in the wake of Citizens United and then the 2009-2010 tea party wave. Something calling itself "Tea Party Patriots" should be scrutinized for political activity, as should any "Occupy" group. I remember a whole lot of conservatives defending Bush's warrant-less wiretapping of all American communications! From conservative legal blogger Orin Kerr: The Non-Story of the AP Phone Records, At Least So Far So I guess it was just routine matter that unapproved applications got sent to a liberal blog along with all their info on them? Just another low level employee? http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-offi...nfidential-docs This kind of abuse of power should frighten you as well. Instead you brush it off as a simple 'mistake' or someone just trying to take a shortcut that had 'unintended results'.

DeAza

Konerko

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 10, 2013 -> 03:16 PM) WHY WON'T THE MSM COVER THIS!!!!??? (sorry, just trying to fit in!) More like, 'why didn't they cover it YEARS ago?'

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 10, 2013 -> 02:06 PM) IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups Move along, nothing to see here...........

De Aza

Keppinger

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 7, 2013 -> 07:29 AM) That's because they are. Most people can't pass them sober. With my knees and feet issues I couldn't stand on one leg for very long, certainly not without wobbling. Hell I can't WALK without wobbling. Heel to toe? Yeah, again, not very long.

Rios

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 5, 2013 -> 09:47 PM) The leniency of DUI laws in America is ridiculous. Only if you have money. Be a non-celebrity or under-6- figure earner and be prepared for jail time if a death occurs, or serious bucks shelled out if not. And even if you are found innocent, you still have to spend thousands of bucks just to prove it. Now there was a time now that long ago when you would be correct. You often heard of people with several DUIs. But now it is a money grab by all. Suspension of license, mandatory classes to get it back, even if found not guilty, which YOU have to pay for and the state gets a cut, your lawyer fees, extra costs to reinstate your license, and if you are guilty and have to have the breath-thing, of course you pay for that, too, from a state authorized company, of which the state also gets a piece of, and so on. And local police departments get grant money for bringing in a certain amount of drunk drivers, so the cops aren't interested in letting people go anymore, they get more cash the more they bring in! That is why they even bend the rules in reverse now. Smell like beer but not drunk? Too bad, getting arrested anyway, tell it to the judge, after you spend thousands and lose your license in the meantime. And Tex, I am sorry to hear about your student. it does suck.

Rios

Connor G.

Connor G.

Rios