31–40 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, in the case of the Tea Party they delayed applications through the election, and there's also evidence the IRS handed donor information to outside groups.
If there "is evidence", you should provide it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, in the case of the Tea Party they delayed applications through the election, and there's also evidence the IRS handed donor information to outside groups.
If there "is evidence", you should provide it.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/National-...
I wonder if this was an intended consequence of cutting IRS funding or whether those doing the cutting literally didn't think about it beyond "fuck'em!". And now I'm wondering which scenario is more dissapointing.
Edit: OK, gotcha.
I wonder if this was an intended consequence of cutting IRS funding or whether those doing the cutting literally didn't think about it beyond "fuck'em!". And now I'm wondering which scenario is more dissapointing.
How is using resources to do something improper (targeting groups) a consequence of not having enough resources to do other more proper things? Edit: OK, gotcha.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They want to be able to take large donations from wealthy contributors, without (a) having to pay tax on them as income, or (b) having to follow the normal reporting requirements for political groups.
> without (a) having to pay tax on them as income, But that is my point: The expenses write off against the revenue in the biz, so there's no point in creating a separate org. There can't be sizeable income left in the separate org, or they get nailed for having assets. > (b) having to follow the normal reporting requirements for political groups. That's different, but I got the sense from the article that it was mor…
If huge corporations are hiding parts of their operations under a 501c status it SHOULD be looked into. Don't fall into the trap that Tea Party members fell into. This is not a scandal. Don't cry about it. No big deal.
To be fair, in the case of the Tea Party they delayed applications through the election, and there's also evidence the IRS handed donor information to outside groups.
Which shouldn't matter if they actually are social welfare organizations. If the election is that important to them, maybe they actually were hidden political orgs after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, in the case of the Tea Party they delayed applications through the election, and there's also evidence the IRS handed donor information to outside groups.
> in the case of the Tea Party they delayed applications through the election Which shouldn't matter if they actually are social welfare organizations. If the election is that important to them, maybe they actually were hidden political orgs after all.
Or maybe they don't get that political organizations should not ever be charitable "social welfare" organizations, on the left or the right.
In any case, it seems to me that you've got an excellent point. And the fact is that there's tons of evidence that the IRS was just being slow, not partisan, INCLUDING the linked article.
"Tea Party", being a politically based category, seems like a natural red flag for the IRS, just as "Progressive" or "Libertarian" would be. It's really hard to believe that most of these organizations WOULD have qualified. If someone created a non-profit named "Democrats for Social Justice," I would equally expect the IRS to think twice about approving "charitable" status.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there "is evidence", you should provide it.
Here you go, straight from the "outside group": http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-sent-confidential-info...
http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-t...
I'm not convinced it's a targeting of opposing political groups by the white house though. If Propublica requested papers, and got them even if they shouldn't have, that's a bureaucratic error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, in the case of the Tea Party they delayed applications through the election, and there's also evidence the IRS handed donor information to outside groups.
> in the case of the Tea Party they delayed applications through the election Which shouldn't matter if they actually are social welfare organizations. If the election is that important to them, maybe they actually were hidden political orgs after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there "is evidence", you should provide it.
He said that on March 30, 2012, NOM became aware that the Human Rights Campaign, the pro-gay rights group, obtained confidential information of its donors and posted the information without redacting the names. That information later appeared on websites like the Huffington Post. NOM discovered another document with redactions that had been posted. A computer analysis, after removing the document's redaction layer, d…
Testimony: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/eastman_testimon...