The Republican Thread

[EvilMonkey]

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.

[Balta1701]

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.

501 c 4 applications:

2010 1735

2011 2265

2012 3357

 

Looks like they doubled to me.

[StrangeSox]

It was an ongoing investigation, though.

[Balta1701]

One thing the IG's reported noted is that you're allowed to sue the IRS after 270 days if your application isn't processed, but nobody did.

Just so I keep saying this...for a 501©4 group, it's not an application.

[StrangeSox]

501 c 4 applications:

2010 1735

2011 2265

2012 3357

 

Looks like they doubled to me.

The rule started in March 2010. The IRS would probably go by the federal fiscal year, so FY10 would be October 09-September 10. That would place March half way through the year. What we don't see is 2008's numbers. The IRS may have implemented this rule in 2010 after being crushed by a wave in 2009.

 

I'll note that the chart explicitly says that the information wasn't verified.

Edited May 17, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Just so I keep saying this...for a 501©4 group, it's not an application.

what?

[Balta1701]

what?

Priorities USA and Crossroads GPS never filled out that form. Neither did ColbertSuperPAC SHH. Those were 501©4 groups.

 

For a 501©4 group, you can simply declare on the tax statement for the group that it is a 501©4 group. They can "self-declare" that they are 501©4 groups (here's the IRS stating so). Basically, to do that, you need to be able to afford a good enough lawyer to make sure what you're doing is ok. Might have had to fill out a form for the FEC as well, but that's it, you do not need approval from the IRS.

 

These groups are asking the IRS to review whether they meet the standard of 501©4 groups. They're not filling out an application, they're filling out a request for the IRS to step in in place of hiring their own lawyers.

[StrangeSox]

Ok, that sounds like a semantic quibble though. The IG report still found that they could sue after 270 days of non-approval and nobody did.

[EvilMonkey]

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.

[Balta1701]

Ok, that sounds like a semantic quibble though. The IG report still found that they could sue after 270 days of non-approval and nobody did.

It's actually not a semantic quibble.

 

I could declare that my group "Obamacare rules!" is a 501©4 tomorrow and no one would have a problem with it, I wouldn't have to ask the IRS.

 

The difference winds up being what I do with the money I raise. Now we run into the "Primary Purpose" designation. If I call my group that and I spend all my time signing up homeless people for Medicare, I would never have any problem and could continue raising money.

 

But if I wanted to run ads or argue in favor of a specific candidate, now I run the risk of having violated that standard. In order for me to get in trouble, someone would actually have to be checking on it, which there isn't anyone doing, but if I wanted to cover my tail completely I could request permission from the IRS.

 

But for the IRS to judge that...they need to know details of my political activities to the point of being able to judge what my "Primary Purpose" is.

 

Hence the mess. Do they just rubber stamp every group, or do they actually request enough details to make a judgment from groups that look like they might be political?

[Balta1701]

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.

I would be more than happy to deal with the fact that groups which should never, ever, ever receive tax exempt status receive tax exempt status regularly, but that's not what this issue is about. The Heritage foundation would be the conservative version of that, they're a 501©3 also.

 

If you want me to admit that these groups receiving tax-exempt status is a huge scandal...great. It's a complete f***ing joke. It ought to be a much bigger scandal than these 501c4 confirmation delays, but that's not nearly the only scandal in our modern campaign bribery system.

[mr_genius]

Do they just rubber stamp every group, or do they actually request enough details to make a judgment from groups that look like they might be political opponents?

 

fixed it for you

 

[southsider2k5]

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?

 

So they did a higher volume, it is OK if they had a higher target rate... Hmmm...

[mr_genius]

If you want me to admit that these groups receiving tax-exempt status is a huge scandal...great. It's a complete f***ing joke. It ought to be a much bigger scandal than these 501c4 confirmation delays, but that's not nearly the only scandal in our modern campaign bribery system.

 

well i agree with that. get rid of all of them. not just ones you don't like. all of them.

[Balta1701]

And right there, we see why no one will ever care about the fact that these groups should have no business ever being granted tax exempt status...it only sells if you can tell one side they're the victim.

[Balta1701]

well i agree with that. get rid of all of them. not just ones you don't like. all of them.

YAY! I'm game!

 

None of these groups should have tax advantages. It's a complete joke. That goes for the 501©4's in this "scandal" as well, but now thanks to how this is getting portrayed, we'll have even less enforcment. The door is wide open now; no 501©4 will ever get increased scrutiny again.

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

No, I think that's exactly Balta's point, these rules are seriously under-enforced.

[EvilMonkey]

No, I think that's exactly Balta's point, these rules are seriously SELECTIVELY under-enforced.

Fixed that for you.

[StrangeSox]

No they're straight-up underenforced.

[Balta1701]

And again, there's the problem.

 

We have a system that's a complete mess and completely unenforceable, but nobody cares about that, they only care if they're being slightly disadvantaged relative to the other side. Even when people make a good point, that the full system is completely f***ed, as soon as I agree...they go back to playing the victim on behalf of their side.

[EvilMonkey]

And again, there's the problem.

 

We have a system that's a complete mess and completely unenforceable, but nobody cares about that, they only care if they're being slightly disadvantaged relative to the other side. Even when people make a good point, that the full system is completely f***ed, as soon as I agree...they go back to playing the victim on behalf of their side.

A few people have agreed with you that the whole system is a mess. However that mess allows for selective enforcement, or non enforcement, at the whims of 'low level employees'. At the very least, that needs to be fixed. better would be to get rid of those things entirely, like you mentioned, and a few others. We can't agree with you and b**** at the same time?

[Balta1701]

A few people have agreed with you that the whole system is a mess. However that mess allows for selective enforcement, or non enforcement, at the whims of 'low level employees'. At the very least, that needs to be fixed. better would be to get rid of those things entirely, like you mentioned, and a few others. We can't agree with you and b**** at the same time?

Just remember...the b***ing about selective enforcement is almost certainly going to scare the IRS into no enforcement whatsoever. And Congress and the FEC won't step in to fix that either.

[EvilMonkey]

Just remember...the b***ing about selective enforcement is almost certainly going to scare the IRS into no enforcement whatsoever. And Congress and the FEC won't step in to fix that either.

So why can't is scare them into enforcing BOTH sides equally? If it is a cultural thing inside the agency, then fire them all and start over. You have rules, enforce the rules. For everyone. Otherwise you are as bad as NBA refs.

[StrangeSox]

So why can't is scare them into enforcing BOTH sides equally? If it is a cultural thing inside the agency, then fire them all and start over. You have rules, enforce the rules. For everyone. Otherwise you are as bad as NBA refs.

 

Because there's literally 1 guy that was ultimately responsible for reviewing files flagged by others. And anyone who gets investigated complains of unfair discrimination.

[EvilMonkey]

Because there's literally 1 guy that was ultimately responsible for reviewing files flagged by others. And anyone who gets investigated complains of unfair discrimination.

Actually I think it was one woman, Sarah hall, who just got PROMOTED to head the Obamacare dept at the IRS instead of being fired.