Adaher’s used to it.
His approach appears to be,"Screw reality, I’ll wear you down with persistence. "
Investigation is ongoing? Funny how there’s no more ," I’m just asking questions" publicity stunts. It’s almost like Issa’s trying to sweep his shitting the bed under the carpet or something…
Getting kinda lumpy under there, don’tcha think?
That depends on whether approval is required. If a business license is neither approved or denied, then you don’t get to open your business.
True, but I bet the law wouldn’t survive a court challenge today. Dangling a goodie in front of people and then threatening to take it away if they engage in political activity is clearly an attempt to chill 1st amendment rights. LBJ’s motives were indisputably an attempt to chill free speech, he was pissed at a church for opposing his reelection.
Sounds more like the administration is testing the limits of how far it can go in harassing its enemies while facilitating things for its friends. “We didn’t actually charge the conservative groups fees, we just through two tons of paperwork at them that we didn’t throw at liberal groups.”
With both the IRS and EPA, and the myriad other federal agencies that have been harassing conservatives, there doesn’t have to be evidence of high crimes to prove that there’s a problem. We already knew government workers tended to favor Democrats, but up until recently they executed their duties without bias(if not with a great deal of competence). What we’re seeing now is the systematic politicization of the bureaucracy. The fact that it’s not crossing the line into outright felonies, but staying within the letter of the law, does not make it all right.
Funny how you didn’t object to the politicizing of Department of Justice hirings under George Bush.
Umm… But don’t you think *some *evidence would be nice if you don’t want people laughing in your face when you make outrageous claims?
You’re right Ad. It’s only a matter of time before they’re dragging conservatives out into the streets and shooting them. I’d move now. Someplace without all these laws that are so arbitrarily enforced. Somalia sounds appealing…
Department of Justice? Hell, Bush 43 politicized the hiring of fucking park rangers.
Oh baloney. That is what the tax credit is for; to encourage social welfare free of political speech. You are trying to have it both ways; avoid the tax and engage in political activities. You have no 1st amendment leg to stand on.
Its not so much the tax avoidance , its the anonymity. It becomes a device so that rich guys can pour their money into politics without leaving any fingerprints.
Why is political speech a threat that requires the revocation of tax exempt status? The way the IRS interprets its mandate is consistent with the Constitution. Social welfare organization should be allowed to participate in politics.
Of course, their interpretation of the law is consistent with the Constitution when it’s applied fairly to all. When they give conservatives a harder time than liberals, they are violating all sorts of laws.
The “evidence” that the IRS was treating conservative groups unfairly has pretty much been demolished. The IRS used “progressive” as a search term to flag an application for further scrutiny just as it used conservative buzzwords. Also, NO conservative groups were denied tax exemption although some liberal groups were. Whine, whine, whine, that’s all right wingers can do.
As stated earlier, the IRS in effect rewrote the law in 1959. If it isn’t right to not allow social welfare organizations to participate in politics, change the law.
I concur completely with the view offered by MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnel that the original law was illegally altered by the IRS. A lawsuit to that point is currently being filed:
And that “argument” has been demolished by simply pointing out again and again that Tea Party applications couldn’t be handled at the Cincinnati level, while progressive applications could and were.
But you all know that by now, so I can only assume we’re just repeating Rep. Cummings’ talking points.
Hey, I’m all for the lawsuit. I expect that once this goes to the Supreme Court, the 1959 law will be overturned. It was passed with the specific intent to chill political speech. There’s no way it can stand in today’s judicial environment.
But even if it doesn’t stand, at least it will end unions’ tax exemptions.
So, are we still waiting for the bombshell revelation from the “Hon.” Darell Issa? Any minute now? Day? Week?
I know you meant that metaphorically, but a man can dream . . .
We can, of course, rely on you to Pit any and all of these new state-level anti-abortion laws that were appended to funding measures or motorcycle-safety bills or whatever?
It’s looking more and more like the problem centers around Lois Lerner. The Republicans won’t get the bombshell they hoped for, but they’ll get more than enough ammunition to pass a series of reform bills at the IRS in particular and the federal bureaucracy in general.
As I said before, the most useful reform that will likely pass Congress is the requirement that all regulatory actions and findings be signed by the person who actually exercised that power, rather than the signature of their boss who then claims to have never seen the document.
I don’t like the practice of attaching unrelated riders to bills and I think it should be ruled out of order by the Parliamentarian, although first that requires a rule. It’s a simple thing actually, doesn’t even need the President’s signature or cooperation from another chamber. If the House does it alone, then all bills have to be on one subject.
I didn’t pit LBJ, so I’m not going to pit anyone else over the practice. Just observing that some laws have more moral legitimacy than others, even if they are legally equivalent to laws passed transparently. I find it strange that a law passed in such a shady manner is treated as holy writ by its supporters.