For Pete’s sake, I already pointed out that his office has clarified what “partisan” means in this context. Did you read that?
Cite?
The requirement that donors be disclosed to the IRS? The instructions for IRS Form 990, Schedule B.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. Donor lists have to be made public unless you’re a 501(c)(4). Is that what you need a cite for?
At this point, with the information at hand, I’ll do it.
Thanks.
Yes. Potter (who is hardly a pinko) did not suggest that failure to register lost one the benefit of the 501(c)(4) arrangement.
What if its true? What if the Tea Party groups were gaming the system on 501©4? I’ve already referenced one such incident, Dick Armey’s short lived fiasco the Tea Party Express was either blatantly gaming the system or playing very cutesy-poo.
Suppose you are one of these guys, charged with vetting these applications, and you run across the same stuff I did. Wouldn’t your first reaction be “Hey, I maybe should check and see how many of these Tea Party type groups are pulling this happy horseshit!”
That would be wrong, why? How is that “targeting” conservative groups? Murdering ACORN on the basis of lies and fabrications, that’s kosher, but investigating whether or not Tea Party groups are little more than legal fictions to cover for anonymous donors, that would be wrong? Huh?
Oh, and while we’re about it, if anyone is ready to post that list of conservative groups crushed beneath the etc., I’m ready to read it! Still ready. Still asking.
Anyone else wondering why this thing is shriveling so quickly? I’m thinking maybe one guy on the righty end of things had the same thought I did. Gotta be one guy smart enough to ask those sorts of questions. Won’t be popular.
Howcome I’m the only guy asking those questions here? I’m thinking the Dems paniced on this one and ran for political cover and immediately jumped to renounce, denounce, and condemn mode without even asking such an impertinent question: what if its true?
I don’t think the inspector general’s report says anything about targeting them because of questionable applications in the past, does it?
Not sure what difference that makes. Maybe he didn’t ask that question either. Dunno. What I do know I’ve already shared. And does anybody seriously believe, scout’s honor, that the Tea Partys are not primarily political operations? The example I gave you, Tea Party Express, was clearly involved in getting out the conservative vote. How is that not political?
You seem to be under the impression that 501(c)(4) organizations are not allowed to be political. That is false. They can be entirely 100% political. They can lobby all day that everyone should get out and vote, and when you do, keep in mind these conservative principals. That would be perfectly legitimate.
If you are alleging that they operated somehow in violation of what a 501(c)(4) organization was allowed to do, do you have evidence? Perhaps let the IRS know.
I think that there are some that are truly political, and others that fit under current law preaching conservative themes (low taxes, starve the beast, worship the Constitution).
So, yes, I believe that there are many Tea Party / Patriot / Anti-Tax groups that fit the current legal interpretation of legit 501(c)4 organizations.
I know of two local Tea Party groups that have nothing to do with Fox or the Koch brothers. They took the name, use the brand, and rally some local people to donate, agitate and educate.
I belong to a couple of local green/environmental groups. We also get people to donate, agitate and educate. We have to be careful that we don’t cross over the line as well. I would be pissed off if the IRS under Bush put every group with “Green” under some sort of additional scrutiny just for having the word “Green” in our organizational title.
No, they cannot be “primarily” political.
Define political? They can be 100% dedicated to lobbying. Is that political? They can be 100% dedicated to general advocacy. Is that political? I think both of those activities fall under the auspices of being political.
From Figure 1 of the IG report:
Lobbying and general advocacy are allowed to be unlimited as long as they further the tax-exempt purposes of the organization. Are you saying that lobbying and advocacy are not political in nature?
And they conduct rallies and mass meetings, wherein political candidates offer speeches to crowds that might well be expected to be sympathetic. At the very least. Is that political, or is it carefully manicured to shelter in a grey area?
For me, another crucial question is how much of this careful fudging a result of a desire on the part of their benefactors to remain anonymous? I firmly admire any genuine grass roots movement, regardless of what I may think of their opinions.
But am I the only one who noticed that when the fledgling Tea Parties announced a rallying event, they had a remarkable amount of financial resource? Sound systems, buses, stages and stage managers…professional quality stuff. From where? From wealthy donors, so proud of their political positions they would prefer to remain anonymous? Why is that, do you think? Modesty?
I mean, seriously folks, Karl Rove’s Crossroads is a 501©4, because its all about social welfare and not about politics. Yeah, sure. Hugh Bethca!
What if it’s not just the IRS?
In December 2010 the FBI came to ask about a person who’d attended a King Street Patriots function. In January 2011 the FBI had more questions. The same month the IRS audited her business tax returns. In May 2011 the FBI called again for a general inquiry about King Street Patriots. In June 2011 Engelbrecht’s personal tax returns were audited and the FBI called again. In October 2011 a round of questions on True the Vote. In November 2011 another call from the FBI. The next month, more questions from the FBI. In February 2012 a third round of IRS questions on True the Vote. In February 2012 a first round of questions on King Street Patriots. The same month the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms did an unscheduled audit of her business. (It had a license to make firearms but didn’t make them.) In July 2012 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration did an unscheduled audit. In November 2012 more IRS questions on True the Vote. In March 2013, more questions. In April 2013 a second ATF audit.
If it comes out that the FBI, OSHA, and ATF were also harassing Tea Partiers, it will be awfully hard for the President to claim he didn’t know anything until he read the paper.
The WSJ points out some more circumstantial evidence:
On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.
What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, “its officers and directors,” and its “anonymous donors.” Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a “knowing and willful violation” of election law, and wanted “action to enforce against criminal violations.” . . .
Also on Sept. 8, Mr. Bauer complained to the Federal Election Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He demanded that AIP turn over certain tax documents to his campaign (his right under IRS law), then sent a letter to AIP further hounding it for confidential information (to which he had no legal right).
The Bauer onslaught was a big part of a new liberal strategy to thwart the rise of conservative groups. In early August 2008, the New York Times trumpeted the creation of a left-wing group (a 501(c)4) called Accountable America. Founded by Obama supporter and liberal activist Tom Mattzie, the group—as the story explained—would start by sending “warning” letters to 10,000 GOP donors, “hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.” The letters would alert “right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.” As Mr. Mattzie told Mother Jones: “We’re going to put them at risk.”
Then there’s all the talk during the 2010 and 2012 campaigns about how these groups were shady and possibly illegal. Did the President even have to give orders for his administration to get the message loud and clear?
That sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. They were using partisan terms without regard to the ideology of the group in order to ferret out groups that are political. Of course all the terms were used by conservative groups? Oops! That’s a good example of twisting words and torturing logic. Do you think anyone actually buys this line of reasoning?
It’s not tortured logic at all: it’s what makes most sense to me.
Partisan motive: “I want to HURT conservatives, so I’m going to delay authorization of status for them by asking nosy questions! Never mind that doing this for partisan reasons is a criminal offense that could put me in jail, and never mind that doing this will have zero effect on the conservatives, since they can keep on keepin on until their status is finalized–I must be SPITEFUL!”
Nonpartisan motive: “My bosses want me to watch out for people violating 501(c)(4) status by being primarily political, but they haven’t told me how to do so. Uhhh…maybe I can watch out for some key word that show up in the media all the time? Hey, I know, Tea Party! Patriot! A bunch of Republicans are using those words a lot in their political activities, and we’re getting a lot of applications with those words in them. Let’s look at them!”
It seems far likelier to me that the latter is happening than that the former is happening.
It seems much more likely that it was an attempt to suppress conservative speech. No key words were used that might potentially snare progressive groups. I realize the partisan blinders you are wearing compels you to seek out an innocent explanation for this. The fact remains that the IRS is the agency that instills the most fear in Americans. That they were harassing conservative groups at the behest of Dems in congress means little to you.
When the IRS comes after certain groups like they did it dissuades others from attempting to form similar groups. When donors to conservative groups get the FBI showing up at their door and the IRS auditing their tax returns it makes individuals think twice before donating to a conservative cause.
<clipped>
You don’t get to ask more/different questions, use different standards on one group than you do with others.
Two people enter the DMV to get their drivers license: 16 year-old Speedy McLeadfoot and Nanny GoSlow, his 70 year-old Nana. The DMV can’t administer a more stringent test to Speedy nor inquire if he plans to drag race his friends nor make him wait months longer to obtain his license because with a name like “Speedy” he MIGHT later break the law. No, the DMV has to apply the SAME objective test/requirements to both Nanny and Speedy regardless of their names or what they THINK they MIGHT do with the license. If, later on, it is adjudicated that Speedy violated the law, then the consequences should be applied, the same with Granny.
At the application stage, one set of requirements/standards applies, no matter who the applicant is.