Was the IRS targeting political organizations, or not? Republicans can't have it both ways

[bigtree]

In order to claim that targeting these conservative groups was politically motivated, republicans have to agree that these groups applying for the 501(c)4 tax-exemption were, in fact, political, and illegally trying to skirt a tax law that republicans regularly defend.

[bemildred]

1. Exactly. nt

[treestar]

2. Yep.

When applying for these statuses, an organization has to prove it is the type of organization to which the exemption applies. Why wouldn't there be reason to look into it carefully if the name has a political bent to it?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. Oh yeah. Good point

Too bad such a distinction/nuance will be lost on them. The other problem is that the IRS has already apologized (has it fired the individuals?), so now Republicans now have *proof* that, "SEE! the IRS wronged us!" Bonus points for being able to add fuel to the fire to right-wing paranoia about President Obama "persecuting" right-wing groups that, admittedly, do not like him. I wish that there had been more of an investigation into the matter before (what looks like) pre-emptively/reflexively apologizing for what was supposed to have happened.

[Lindsay]

4. But they always want to have it both ways.

Unless they get their way in every way, they're being oppressed! Just ask 'em!

[KittyWampus]

5. Exactly. Furthermore, the very groups whinging are the same ones targeting minority voters.

In fact, the targeting of minority voters is a basic principle for these groups to even exist.

[rustydog]

6. The GOP ALWAYS gets it both ways

Always has since right-wing media and always will.

[Flagrante]

7. But of course the FTC's targeting, under Bush, of Martha Stewart was in no way political.

[Misskittycat]

8. The 501(c)(4) exemption status has always been murky.

Note that these groups are not trying for the traditional -- charitable, contributions-deductible -- type of exemption. That is 501(c)(3). Under 501(c)(3, no political activity is allowed.

BTW, under the Nixon Administration, there was a brouhaha over that Administration's targeting of liberal groups by the IRS.

[AnnieK401]

9. Excellent point!

[bigtree]

10. .

[Cha]

11. Brilliant!@ thanks bigtree

[Cha]

12. Joy Reid Agrees.. "Ladies and gentlemen, the totally non-partisan, apolitical tea party …"

Tea party support is 9 in 10 among Republicans … less than 50 percent among everybody else. From an ABC-commissioned poll in April 2012:

Within the Republican Party, Tea Party support peaks at 88 percent among conservative Republicans, with 32 percent “strongly” supportive. That declines to 69 percent of Republicans who do not describe themselves as “very” conservative – and notably, in this group, just 16 percent are strong Tea Party supporters. The movement also is backed by 64 percent of evangelical white Protestants.

http://blog.reidreport.com/2013/05/ladies-and-gentlemen-the-totally-non-partisan-apolitical-tea-party/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reidreport%2FbHvp+%28The+Reid+Report%29

[bigtree]

17. yep, Joy . . . and Keith Ellison

tweeted by, Joy Reid ‏@TheReidReport 12h

Keith Ellison nails it. The secondary purpose of this "scandal" is to back the IRS off the phony, fake 501(c)4's popping up as "tea party"

[Cha]

18. Precisely, bigtree. And, the gopity party will be fundraising on

"govmint overreach".

[applegrove]

13. Right on. And while they are at it how

many tea party groups had police undercover at their organizing meetings like Occupy groups had? NONE. Why? Because Occupy involved civil disobedience which would attract the civil law enforcers. While tea party groups attracted the IRS because they were political titles/groups using charitable status.

[moondust]

14. From an IRS employee:

(at least claiming to be in a post on Alternet)

I would be very surprised if there is ever a political motive discovered for whatever the IRS did with respect to the tax exempt status applications.

My husband and I have between us 45 years of experience working for the IRS. During that time we worked in a variety of positions and locations. My stint included 9 months working as a program analyst in the national office headquarters in Washington, D.C. My husband also worked in Washington, D.C. for several years. Between us we have known hundreds of IRS employees. We have no idea what political affiliation any of them had. Their job is to enforce the law, regardless of which political party wrote the law, or which party happens to be in office at the time the law was written. It would be very unusual for any political motive to enter into any decisions within the agency, unless the orders came from the very top. And I don't believe that anything like that has happened since Nixon was in office.

I'm pretty confident this White House would not do something that stupid. You'd never be able to trust everybody involved to keep their mouths shut about it.

[cali]

15. uh, the IRS has admitted and apologized. And clearly, if they were only targeting

republican and right wing groups, when there are plenty of liberal groups doing the same thing, it was political targeting.

Your reasoning is faulty.

[Flying Squirrel]

16. Quit making sense

And trying to lure lurking trolls out into the open.

[meow2u3]

19. The IRS should also investigate ALEC

They're organized as a 501 (c)(3), yet they not only engage in political activity, they also literally are writing state laws in repuke-controlled states.

Is this so-called scandal an attempt to poison the will so ALEC can get away with bloody murder? I'm beginning to think so.

[NoMoreWarNow]

20. kick

[spanone]

21. the tea party needs serious scrutiny.....constantly.

[B2G]

22. Except the same type of liberal organizations

sailed through the process.

How do you explain that?

[klyon]

28. one did not pass at all

all should have been looked at closely especially those that oppose taxes

[B2G]

35. One. nt

[klyon]

36. that I heard of

I do not have the full story
I wonder, along with Thom Hartmann, what these organizations are doing that makes them deserve tax exemption, left and right. Politics is politics not charity.

[hack89]

23. 501(c)4 organizations can be political

as long as they spend less then 50% of their money on elections.

These groups are allowed to to participate in politics, so long as politics do not become their primary focus. What that means in practice is that they must spend less than 50 percent of their money on politics. So long as they don’t run afoul of that threshold, the groups can influence elections, which they typically do through advertising.

Crossroads GPS, the conservative group co-founded by Karl Rove is one well-known example. On the other end of the political spectrum is Organizing for Action, which is what President Obama’s campaign operation turned into after the 2012 election. Often, organizations will have multiple arms, including a nonprofit and a super PAC. American Crossroads, for example, is a super PAC affiliated with Crossroads GPS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/13/what-is-a-501c4-anyway/

[bigtree]

31. they’re not meant to be political

from Ezra Klein at WaPo:


___ A 2003 IRS document says that “organizations that promote social welfare should primarily promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community as a whole.” It goes on to give pages and pages of examples. “A corporation organized for the purpose of rehabilitating and placing unemployed persons over a stated age,” for instance. Or “a corporation formed to provide a school district with a stadium.” “A memorial association organized to study and develop methods of achieving simplicity and dignity in funeral and memorial services,” qualifies, as does “an organization that conducts an annual festival centered around regional customs and traditions.”

Nowhere does the IRS mention “an organization formed by top political operatives for the clear and obvious purpose of reelecting or defeating the president.” But that’s what 501(c)4s have become. According to data collected by OpenSecrets.org, 501(c)4s spent $92 million in the 2010 election. They spent $254 million in the 2012 election. That’s a lot of social welfare going to the good people who live in swing states and competitive districts.

The 501(c)4s aren’t superPACs. But many superPACs also have a 501(c)4. The reason? The 501(c)4s keep donors anonymous. “The only reason to have two of these is if you wanted to have one that allows people and entities to avoid disclosure,” explains Rick Hasen, an election-law expert at the University of California at Irvine.

The culprit here is partly the Citizens United and SpeechNow decisions which lifted the contribution limits on wealthy individuals, corporations, and unions. But it’s also the IRS’s reticence to regulate the murky world of 501(c)4s — a reticence partly attributable to the organization’s fear of blow-ups just like this one.


read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/the-irs-was-wrong-to-target-the-tea-party-they-shouldve-gone-after-all-501c4s/

[VOX]

24. Wow. The problem, solved.

Thanks, bigtree!

[klyon]

25. bingo you nailed it

slam dunk

[jberryhill]

26. Brilliant!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. Logical reasoning at its best! Good job!!

I think Ari Melber made a similar point last night on one of the shows.

[Little Star]

29. Take a look at this from Lawrence O'Donnell's show last night...

I promise it will be worth the read...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022851430

[BlueCaliDem]

30. Word.

And this is how Corporate Media should be bringing forth the narrative.

Conservatives/Republicans will either have to admit that those groups were politically motivated or drop their wailing that the IRS was singling them out because they were politically motivated.

But as always, Republicans believe in "do as I say not as I do!".

[Yo_Mama]

32. That question is answered affirmatively in the IRS IG's report

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141499802/Full-text-The-IG-s-54-page-IRS-tax-scandal-report

Organizations involved in political lobbying may qualify for various 501(c) statuses. However it shouldn't be electioneering for certain candidates.

Political activity of some type or another is engaged in by many types of 501(c) orgs. For example, I have given to various 501(c) homeless/battered women's groups. All of them from time to time have lobbied legislatures over political issues and laws related to either group, and I expect them to do so. That's one of the reasons I give them money - to be a voice for those who otherwise would be voiceless.

All of the legalities involved are fully explained in the report I linked. The main difference between c(3)s and c(4)s (charity vs social welfare orgs) are that charities may engage in some political activity but it should be tangential, whereas social welfare orgs may engage in considerably more political activity.

Labor/ag groups are c(5)s and business leagues are c(6)s. The (c) groups from 4-6 may all engage in unlimited lobbying and general political advocacy.

You would not want to stop these groups from lobbying or general advocacy. The social welfare groups that are focused upon particular groups are very important parts of our political system. For example, various groups dealing with the problem of domestic abuse picked up the fact that insurance companies were denying future coverage or raising rates on women who had been beaten up by their husbands, and these groups lobbied for law changes preventing this.

We recently had a story posted on DU about a CA farm that tried to fire its laborers because they fled the worksite due to severe smoke from a nearby fire.

[bushisanidiot]

33. Exactly!

the tea party has claimed since the beginning that they were non-partisan.
Yet, they NEVER came to the aid of ANY democrats. They only supported
republicans and the wealthy GOP fat cats used the tea party to skirt
campaign donation laws. The IRS should be investigated for approving
the Tea Party's tax exempt status!

[Rex]

34. They should ask the Bush appointee what he was thinking

(head of the IRS til 2012) when he came up with this idea. Oh wait...Congress won't ask him anything, he is a republican.