Lois Lerner - deja vu

[emperus]

Several things:

1. 501(c)(4)s are already prohibited from spending on campaigns.

2. If the IRS tries to insert the term "exclusively" in regulations they will be struck down.

3. The bolded sentence above won't fly because use of the term "political activities" is contrary to current case law and the term itself is problematic.

In the absence of statutory regulation status, which the IRS does not have under section 501, the IRS cannot write tax law. That power belongs to Congress.

I personally don't believe the IRS can, or should, be the instrument of change on this issue. That should be Congress. Furthermore, I've never seen a valid complaint with the current system. There just seems to be a general hysteria among the left that someone will contribute to a 501(c)(4) that will promote a policy stance (e.g., fiscal responsibility) that is popular ATM among the right.

Fern

Mostly everything in your post in incorrect.

1.) The quoted text you were referring to was taken directly from the IRS website. That is what they define a 501(c)4 organization to be. Defined here
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Social-Welfare-Organizations

2.) 501(c)4's are not prohibited from spending on elections. If you missed it that is what this whole debate is over.

3.) Here is an article on 501(c)4's

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

 

[LunarRay]

Several things:

1. 501(c)(4)s are already prohibited from spending on campaigns.

2. If the IRS tries to insert the term "exclusively" in regulations they will be struck down.

3. The bolded sentence above won't fly because use of the term "political activities" is contrary to current case law and the term itself is problematic.

In the absence of statutory regulation status, which the IRS does not have under section 501, the IRS cannot write tax law. That power belongs to Congress.

I personally don't believe the IRS can, or should, be the instrument of change on this issue. That should be Congress. Furthermore, I've never seen a valid complaint with the current system. There just seems to be a general hysteria among the left that someone will contribute to a 501(c)(4) that will promote a policy stance (e.g., fiscal responsibility) that is popular ATM among the right.

Fern

I recall D.P. Moynihan speaking to this issue at a speech he gave. It seems he was a tad bit upset that Congress creates a law that the Executive molds into policy fitting their agenda while the Judiciary will do god knows what.

It amazes me that the Judiciary can look at the plain language of a law and convert it to some meaning inconsistent with the words contained in the law. Their job is simply to apply the law to the situation not their version of the law but the law as passed by Congress.
Your item #2 logic seems faulty given the term 'exclusive' IS what Congress passed. But, one can argue the Constitutionality of that term given some notion that corporations are people... Which the Koch brothers knew all along. And hopefully both they and their corporations will enjoy the finite existence of personhood.

It seems to me in this Lerner case Issa has determined that what she did was illegal. I simply can't agree. Two of the elements are not obvious to me... Neither Mens rea nor Actus reus can be found IF she followed either the IRS interpretation or the actual Congressionally passed law as written. She can't be convicted of thought crime... Her alleged motives are probably obvious but they fit into thoughts... I think.

 

[LunarRay]

Examples of violation of the law please.

I've seen it, but the response was to revoke their 501(c)(4) status which indicates the current system is working as intended.

Fern

The link above that I provided is the IRS interpretation of the Law passed by Congress.
IF an entity gains tax exempt status and their behavior is contrary to that IRS interpretation they are in violation of it and subject to the penalties applicable... obviously...
The point is; the entity can say they will do 'x' or 'y' to secure the 'blessing' but their actual behavior is what counts, No?
The reverse logic might be that the IRS ought not reconcile anything... just let folks do as they please cuz this is America. That is fine too... so long as the entities pony up the tax on their own volition.

 

[Fern]

Mostly everything in your post in incorrect.

No it isn't, as I'll explain below.

1.) The quoted text you were referring to was taken directly from the IRS website. That is what they define a 501(c)4 organization to be. Defined here
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Social-Welfare-Organizations

That's not authoritative, not at all.

Heck, it's not even a regulation.

All you're seeing is recent IRS attempts to change the law, or how it's been applied. New Proposed regulations, which do NOT have the force of law, were released in Nov '13.

The 'real' point' - The courts have already struck down "exclusive":

While Section 501(c)(4) states that social welfare organizations
must be operated “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare,” 25
the IRS and courts instead interpret “exclusively” to mean “ primarily.

http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2182&context=sulr (My pdf reader says it's pg 10 of 76.)

I've already posted on this rather extensively in previous threads and will not do so again here. Suffice it to say if the courts have already struck down a literal and strict interpretation of the term "exclusive" the IRS cannot rehabilitate the argument with a mere rewrite once again using the term. The courts struck down the interpretation of the word in a STATUTE. A statute carries far far more weight than an IRS regulation.

2.) 501(c)4's are not prohibited from spending on elections. If you missed it that is what this whole debate is over.

I wrote it's already prohibited from spending on campaigns. You wrote "elections". I'm not sure what you're referring to. Do you even know?

3.) Here is an article on 501(c)4's

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

And what about it?

-----------------------------

Much of what has been said here (and in that article) overlooks a very important point that drives the confusion and complexity of this issue: Many, if not all, political issues can be, and are, framed as "social welfare". As I've mentioned before, many political policies are pushed with the claim that they are good for social welfare.

Politics and social welfare are so deeply intertwined I don't believe this can ever be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I recall D.P. Moynihan speaking to this issue at a speech he gave. It seems he was a tad bit upset that Congress creates a law that the Executive molds into policy fitting their agenda while the Judiciary will do god knows what.

It amazes me that the Judiciary can look at the plain language of a law and convert it to some meaning inconsistent with the words contained in the law. Their job is simply to apply the law to the situation not their version of the law but the law as passed by Congress.

It's explained in the court cases. Two things from memory:

1. The law under 501(c)(3) also uses the term "exclusively". Even so Congress itself has expressly permitted (c)(3) orgs to engage in non-related activities. When they do, and if for profit, they are subject to what is known as the UBIT tax. UBIT = Unrelated Business Income Tax.

Now obviously if Congress intended "exclusive" in a literal and strict sense there would be no reason for an UBIT for (c)(3)s because the org simply wouldn't be a nonprofit and would taxed as a for profit.

2. A literal and strict application of "exclusion" would mean that an expenditure of even one penny that couldn't be argued as necessary for the exempt purpose would require the denial of exemption. The courts have concluded that such an interpretation is so unworkable, impractical and stupid Congress couldn't have possibly meant it.

Your item #2 logic seems faulty given the term 'exclusive' IS what Congress passed. But, one can argue the Constitutionality of that term given some notion that corporations are people... Which the Koch brothers knew all along. And hopefully both they and their corporations will enjoy the finite existence of personhood.

As I've already said, the courts have struck down a literal and strict interpretation of exclusive. And that was the statute they struck down.

If you think it's illogical for me to claim that the IRS attempt to, via mere regulations, enforce a literal interpretation of exclusive will be struck down again, well perhaps you should reconsider.

It seems to me in this Lerner case Issa has determined that what she did was illegal. I simply can't agree. Two of the elements are not obvious to me... Neither Mens rea nor Actus reus can be found IF she followed either the IRS interpretation or the actual Congressionally passed law as written. She can't be convicted of thought crime... Her alleged motives are probably obvious but they fit into thoughts... I think.

Current authoritative literature from the IRS does NOT support her interpretation.

And the courts have already clarified what Congress meant when they used the term exclusive.

She hasn't a leg to stand on.

As far as "mens rea", IMO she has a big problem. Her intent is supposedly evident in the recent emails obtained by Congress.

As far as "Actus reus", I think that's why Congress is still digging around. And I'll note that the IRS has still NOT complied with all legally issued subpoenas.

Fern

 

[Fern]

The link above that I provided is the IRS interpretation of the Law passed by Congress.
IF an entity gains tax exempt status and their behavior is contrary to that IRS interpretation they are in violation of it and subject to the penalties applicable... obviously...
The point is; the entity can say they will do 'x' or 'y' to secure the 'blessing' but their actual behavior is what counts, No?
The reverse logic might be that the IRS ought not reconcile anything... just let folks do as they please cuz this is America. That is fine too... so long as the entities pony up the tax on their own volition.

Which link?

We're over 200 posts here. Which of your posts are you referring to?

LMK and I'll answer.

Fern

 

[emperus]

No it isn't, as I'll explain below.



That's not authoritative, not at all.

Heck, it's not even a regulation.

All you're seeing is recent IRS attempts to change the law, or how it's been applied. New Proposed regulations, which do NOT have the force of law, were released in Nov '13.

The 'real' point' - The courts have already struck down "exclusive":


http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2182&context=sulr (My pdf reader says it's pg 10 of 76.)

I've already posted on this rather extensively in previous threads and will not do so again here. Suffice it to say if the courts have already struck down a literal and strict interpretation of the term "exclusive" the IRS cannot rehabilitate the argument with a mere rewrite once again using the term. The courts struck down the interpretation of the word in a STATUTE. A statute carries far far more weight than an IRS regulation.



I wrote it's already prohibited from spending on campaigns. You wrote "elections". I'm not sure what you're referring to. Do you even know?



And what about it?

-----------------------------

Much of what has been said here (and in that article) overlooks a very important point that drives the confusion and complexity of this issue: Many, if not all, political issues can be, and are, framed as "social welfare". As I've mentioned before, many political policies are pushed with the claim that they are good for social welfare.

Politics and social welfare are so deeply intertwined I don't believe this can ever be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Fern

1.) You do understand that the IRS is in charge of interepreting and enforing the tax codes. If it's on it's website, I guarantee you that the in house attorneys that decipger the laws said it was ok. But, I'm sure you are more authoritave on the the regulations than the IRS attorneys.

2.) If you reread the website, the IRS does use the word exclusive and clarifies it the way the article you cited does. You might have missed this part

To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements).

3.)To be exact, The law prohibits spending on "political campaings" for any one candidate. It doesn't prohibit campaigning. I'm not sure if you were trying to be cute in the way you wrote that. Because that statement is the crux of the issue. When does spending 300 million during an election against a candidate become campaigning for a candidate vs. some political activites, seeing that there are generally only 2 candidates running.

 

[LunarRay]

Which link?

We're over 200 posts here. Which of your posts are you referring to?

LMK and I'll answer.

Fern

Oh... well, your #194 quoted it.

I, in the subsequent post, was answering your query about what law was violated, if any.

No biggie.... it was a statement of the obvious.

 

[Fern]

1.) You do understand that the IRS is in charge of interepreting and enforing the tax codes. If it's on it's website, I guarantee you that the in house attorneys that decipger the laws said it was ok. But, I'm sure you are more authoritave on the the regulations than the IRS attorneys.

No, as a tax professional for +30 yrs I understand that each and every court is a higher authority than the IRS.

IRS (Treasury) regulations are primarily there for guidance. I.e., if follow them the IRS cannot take you to court. OTOH, taxpayers can, and often do, take the IRS to court over their regulations. sometimes the taxpayer wins and regulations get rewritten.

2.) If you reread the website, the IRS does use the word exclusive and clarifies it the way the article you cited does. You might have missed this part

I'm unconcerned with any recent IRS unofficial interpretive matter on the issue. The courts have already spoken.

3.)To be exact, The law prohibits spending on "political campaings" for any one candidate.

I'm aware of that and have mentioned it numerous times already.

against a candidate[/B] become campaigning for a candidate vs. some political activites, seeing that there are generally only 2 candidates running.

No, not "trying to be cute".

This is tax law, definitions are of supreme importance.

501(c)(4)'s cannot campaign for or against a candidate or a party. That has long been forbidden.

Yes, good question, when does "social welfare" advocacy become campaigning? Where is the 'line'?

Thorny question and goes back to my contention that politics/policies are intertwined with social welfare and it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to come up with satisfactory rules. When we have such scenarios in other areas of tax law the courts and the IRS resort to a "facts and circumstances" test. That is highly subjective and wholly unsatisfactory because there are no clear lines.

Fern

 

[LunarRay]

It's explained in the court cases. Two things from memory:

1. The law under 501(c)(3) also uses the term "exclusively". Even so Congress itself has expressly permitted (c)(3) orgs to engage in non-related activities. When they do, and if for profit, they are subject to what is known as the UBIT tax. UBIT = Unrelated Business Income Tax.

Now obviously if Congress intended "exclusive" in a literal and strict sense there would be no reason for an UBIT for (c)(3)s because the org simply wouldn't be a nonprofit and would taxed as a for profit.

2. A literal and strict application of "exclusion" would mean that an expenditure of even one penny that couldn't be argued as necessary for the exempt purpose would require the denial of exemption. The courts have concluded that such an interpretation is so unworkable, impractical and stupid Congress couldn't have possibly meant it.



As I've already said, the courts have struck down a literal and strict interpretation of exclusive. And that was the statute they struck down.

If you think it's illogical for me to claim that the IRS attempt to, via mere regulations, enforce a literal interpretation of exclusive will be struck down again, well perhaps you should reconsider.



Current authoritative literature from the IRS does NOT support her interpretation.

And the courts have already clarified what Congress meant when they used the term exclusive.

She hasn't a leg to stand on.

As far as "mens rea", IMO she has a big problem. Her intent is supposedly evident in the recent emails obtained by Congress.

As far as "Actus reus", I think that's why Congress is still digging around. And I'll note that the IRS has still NOT complied with all legally issued subpoenas.

Fern

I guess I'll have to revisit the underlying bits but I am aware of the court rationalizations on the non bolden parts of your post.

I don't know what is in the emails... or I should say... I've not read them nor the context they are in so I could agree with you if they support what you use to form your position. I am biased by the one sided output of Issa. So... I don't have a basis to conclude as you do and defer to Lerner till I do.
Almost ditto on the action bits.

IF it is not obvious, I'll state that I'm not a Liberal nor a Conservative nor any other labeled political thinker. I have my druthers but default to the law with what may appear more moral or right subordinated to it... as best as I can.

 

[Fern]

Oh... well, your #194 quoted it.

I, in the subsequent post, was answering your query about what law was violated, if any.

No biggie.... it was a statement of the obvious.

Well dang, that one post of your has 5 IRS links.

I'm not reading all those, but I'll try my best to answer:

The link above that I provided is the IRS interpretation of the Law passed by Congress.
IF an entity gains tax exempt status and their behavior is contrary to that IRS interpretation they are in violation of it and subject to the penalties applicable... obviously...
The point is; the entity can say they will do 'x' or 'y' to secure the 'blessing' but their actual behavior is what counts, No?

Correct.

Before 'Lerner' in practice the IRS generally approved applications that were complete and evidenced no obvious signs of a purpose other than that approved. Then they always followed up with additional inquiry about the org's activities and requested a lot of financial data.

The reverse logic might be that the IRS ought not reconcile anything... just let folks do as they please cuz this is America. That is fine too... so long as the entities pony up the tax on their own volition.

No, we have nonprofits (or I prefer tax exempts) for a purpose.

One example: Why should one wealthy person be permitted to donate what they want, say millions, tax free but if me and like minded people want to team together to do likewise we get taxed? Makes no sense.

You (royal 'you') really want to give rich people the advantage, just proceed along the Liberals' course.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-

I don't know what is in the emails... or I should say... I've not read them nor the context they are in so I could agree with you if they support what you use to form your position.

I haven't read them. If you'll notice I said "supposedly".

I am biased by the one sided output of Issa. So... I don't have a basis to conclude as you do and defer to Lerner till I do.

I'd suggest people don't pay attention to Issa. IMO, his opinion is irrelevant to me. I'm perfectly capable of forming my own, and there is no doubt he is partisan.

OTOH, the evidence his committee uncovers is important. Again, his characterization of the evidence is irrelevant, but at the same time any evidence should not be considered tainted or discarded merely because his committee brought it to light.

IF it is not obvious, I'll state that I'm not a Liberal nor a Conservative nor any other labeled political thinker. I have my druthers but default to the law with what may appear more moral or right subordinated to it... as best as I can.

OK

Fern

 

[emperus]

No, as a tax professional for +30 yrs I understand that each and every court is a higher authority than the IRS.

IRS (Treasury) regulations are primarily there for guidance. I.e., if follow them the IRS cannot take you to court. OTOH, taxpayers can, and often do, take the IRS to court over their regulations. sometimes the taxpayer wins and regulations get rewritten.



I'm unconcerned with any recent IRS unofficial interpretive matter on the issue. The courts have already spoken.



I'm aware of that and have mentioned it numerous times already.



No, not "trying to be cute".

This is tax law, definitions are of supreme importance.

501(c)(4)'s cannot campaign for or against a candidate or a party. That has long been forbidden.

Yes, good question, when does "social welfare" advocacy become campaigning? Where is the 'line'?

Thorny question and goes back to my contention that politics/policies are intertwined with social welfare and it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to come up with satisfactory rules. When we have such scenarios in other areas of tax law the courts and the IRS resort to a "facts and circumstances" test. That is highly subjective and wholly unsatisfactory because there are no clear lines.

Fern

Yes, you can't have it both ways, either definitions are important or not. Again, the law does not disallow campaigning, it disallows political campaigning for a candidate. In order for a 501(c)4 to be effective it must campaign for it's cause by it's very nature.

Again, we were talking about the quote you commented on. And there is no difference between what you believed was wrong about the IRS's stance and the interpretation arising from the words challenge.

The process you describe is how our legal framework works in general. A law is written by congress, someone interests it (agency or person), someone believes it is a wrong interpretation and challenges it, a court then interprets the law the way they believe the law was intended to be written.

And I wasn't asking you a question. I was stating what the question was that landed Lerner is in this position. Which in itself is an important question to be answered in some difinitive way.

 

[Jhhnn]

501(c)(4)'s cannot campaign for or against a candidate or a party. That has long been forbidden.

Quite true. OTOH, they can campaign wrt "issues" that are strongly associated with a party or candidate, arriving at the same place from a different direction.

The beauty of it all, for megabucks donors, is that funding can be obscured almost in totality, and that such entities can move money around the way people swap spit at an orgy.

 

[werepossum]

Well dang, that one post of your has 5 IRS links.

I'm not reading all those, but I'll try my best to answer:

Correct.

Before 'Lerner' in practice the IRS generally approved applications that were complete and evidenced no obvious signs of a purpose other than that approved. Then they always followed up with additional inquiry about the org's activities and requested a lot of financial data.

No, we have nonprofits (or I prefer tax exempts) for a purpose.

One example: Why should one wealthy person be permitted to donate what they want, say millions, tax free but if me and like minded people want to team together to do likewise we get taxed? Makes no sense.

You (royal 'you') really want to give rich people the advantage, just proceed along the Liberals' course.

Fern

Of the bolded, that is also how the IRS operated under Lerner with the exception of conservative groups and if memory serves three non-conservative groups in the last few months.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of the bolded, that is also how the IRS operated under Lerner with the exception of conservative groups and if memory serves three non-conservative groups in the last few months.

It's important to remember that before Lerner was basically before Citizens United, which prompted the IRS to take a whole new approach.

Oh, and 2/3 of IRS challenges were not Tea-related-

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...1-c-3-Challenges-were-Other-than-Tea-related#

Poor, pitiful, oppressed teatards not found in the first place, but you seem to base all subsequent arguments on the basis that they were, indicating the usual leap of Faith among those so inclined.

Issa plays that the way Clapton plays the guitar.

 

[Bowfinger]

Of the bolded, that is also how the IRS operated under Lerner with the exception of conservative groups and if memory serves three non-conservative groups in the last few months.

You memory does not serve. The Inspector General reviewed the applications of 297 organizations pulled for additional scrutiny. The majority of the applications were NOT selected by the controversial keyword targeting (the "Tea Party" BOLO list). Only about one-third were. The other two-thirds were selected through other criteria. The IG report did NOT explain those other criteria. The IG also declined to categorize the political affiliations of those remaining two-thirds, stating that offering such subjective assessments would compromise his responsibility to be objective and non-partisan. As far as I know, there has been no further analysis released on those applications.

This has been explained again and again, in most (all?) of the previous threads about the IRS story.

The "three" you speak of are the only three organizations whose applications were actually denied, rather than just delayed. They were three separate offices of the same liberal organization (I don't have its name handy). Beyond that, there were anecdotal reports of other liberal organizations coming forward to say their applications had been delayed by the same initiative to identify and review political groups that might not qualify as legitimate 501(c)(4)s. We therefore know the number is greater than three; we do not know how much greater. It may be only a handful, it may be a hundred.

The other key piece of information from the IG report is that most of the applications pulled were, in fact, justified. In other words, the IG reviewed those 297 applications and found most warranted further review to determine if they actually complied with 501(c)(4) campaign restrictions. (The numbers are in the IG report.) In short, while the partisan keyword technique was not appropriate, the overall screening effort produced valid results. This critical fact has been largely swept aside by the outpouring of RNC outrage. The IRS was responding to a legitimate issue, but picked one poor approach (out of many) to address it. It remains to be determined whether that approach was intended to be partisan, or merely an ill-considered shortcut.

 

[Jhhnn]

You memory does not serve. The Inspector General reviewed the applications of 297 organizations pulled for additional scrutiny. The majority of the applications were NOT selected by the controversial keyword targeting (the "Tea Party" BOLO list). Only about one-third were. The other two-thirds were selected through other criteria. The IG report did NOT explain those other criteria. The IG also declined to categorize the political affiliations of those remaining two-thirds, stating that offering such subjective assessments would compromise his responsibility to be objective and non-partisan. As far as I know, there has been no further analysis released on those applications.

This has been explained again and again, in most (all?) of the previous threads about the IRS story.

The "three" you speak of are the only three organizations whose applications were actually denied, rather than just delayed. They were three separate offices of the same liberal organization (I don't have its name handy). Beyond that, there were anecdotal reports of other liberal organizations coming forward to say their applications had been delayed by the same initiative to identify and review political groups that might not qualify as legitimate 501(c)(4)s. We therefore know the number is greater than three; we do not know how much greater. It may be only a handful, it may be a hundred.

The other key piece of information from the IG report is that most of the applications pulled were, in fact, justified. In other words, the IG reviewed those 297 applications and found most warranted further review to determine if they actually complied with 501(c)(4) campaign restrictions. (The numbers are in the IG report.) In short, while the partisan keyword technique was not appropriate, the overall screening effort produced valid results. This critical fact has been largely swept aside by the outpouring of RNC outrage. The IRS was responding to a legitimate issue, but picked one poor approach (out of many) to address it. It remains to be determined whether that approach was intended to be partisan, or merely an ill-considered shortcut.

Well, yeh, but you need to understand the right wing need to engage in.... Conspiracy Theory! It's all a giant Libruhl Conspiracy, like Birtherism, Fast & Furious, not to mention Voter Fraud, Sharia Law & Benghaaaaaaazi.

They're just so sure that they really, really are persecuted that they'll jump through their assholes to believe that they are.

 

[Incorruptible]

Lois Lerner needs to face charges for what she did. It's shameful she is getting away with this. She should be locked up for how she attacked the Tea Party.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lois Lerner needs to face charges for what she did. It's shameful she is getting away with this. She should be locked up for how she attacked the Tea Party.

So you & Issa are now judge & jury, I suppose.

It's in the Constitution, right?

It's really quite remarkable how your well indoctrinated consciousness can filter out contrary information, particularly when you feel the need to wrap yourself in the mantle of victimhood. It seems to be a big part of right wing delusion.

Why do you work so hard at making yourself miserable?

 

[werepossum]

You memory does not serve. The Inspector General reviewed the applications of 297 organizations pulled for additional scrutiny. The majority of the applications were NOT selected by the controversial keyword targeting (the "Tea Party" BOLO list). Only about one-third were. The other two-thirds were selected through other criteria. The IG report did NOT explain those other criteria. The IG also declined to categorize the political affiliations of those remaining two-thirds, stating that offering such subjective assessments would compromise his responsibility to be objective and non-partisan. As far as I know, there has been no further analysis released on those applications.

This has been explained again and again, in most (all?) of the previous threads about the IRS story.

The "three" you speak of are the only three organizations whose applications were actually denied, rather than just delayed. They were three separate offices of the same liberal organization (I don't have its name handy). Beyond that, there were anecdotal reports of other liberal organizations coming forward to say their applications had been delayed by the same initiative to identify and review political groups that might not qualify as legitimate 501(c)(4)s. We therefore know the number is greater than three; we do not know how much greater. It may be only a handful, it may be a hundred.

The other key piece of information from the IG report is that most of the applications pulled were, in fact, justified. In other words, the IG reviewed those 297 applications and found most warranted further review to determine if they actually complied with 501(c)(4) campaign restrictions. (The numbers are in the IG report.) In short, while the partisan keyword technique was not appropriate, the overall screening effort produced valid results. This critical fact has been largely swept aside by the outpouring of RNC outrage. The IRS was responding to a legitimate issue, but picked one poor approach (out of many) to address it. It remains to be determined whether that approach was intended to be partisan, or merely an ill-considered shortcut.

I'll have to see a list of all organizations delayed to buy into this. It's far too easy to claim that if "Patriot" or "Tea Party" or "9/12" isn't in the title it's an honest flag, whereas other terms and individuals may have been the search criteria to identify like-minded conservative organizations. There was a huge difference in delay time between acceptance for progressive groups and conservative groups, and if only one third were conservative groups this would be inexplicable.

I suspect this was also behind demanding lists of donors. If some donors to a non-controversial named group matched some donors to conservative-named groups, that group could then be added to the pile of organizations which must not be granted tax-free status. And by giving those donor lists to proggie groups, those groups could drum up controversy against the non-controversial named group to give the IRS cover for delaying or denying acceptance.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'll have to see a list of all organizations delayed to buy into this. It's far too easy to claim that if "Patriot" or "Tea Party" or "9/12" isn't in the title it's an honest flag, whereas other terms and individuals may have been the search criteria to identify like-minded conservative organizations. There was a huge difference in delay time between acceptance for progressive groups and conservative groups, and if only one third were conservative groups this would be inexplicable.

I suspect this was also behind demanding lists of donors. If some donors to a non-controversial named group matched some donors to conservative-named groups, that group could then be added to the pile of organizations which must not be granted tax-free status. And by giving those donor lists to proggie groups, those groups could drum up controversy against the non-controversial named group to give the IRS cover for delaying or denying acceptance.

Nice rebound into conspiracy.

The inspector general didn't publish the list of other groups delayed for reasons of privacy. You'd know that if you read source material.

Demanding lists of donors? Wut? Mighty touchy, there, mighty touchy indeed.

So, uhh, how many groups other than the Richmond Tea Party LLC have produced copies addressed to them, anyway? Is this an isolated incident, or the general case? Or are the screamers just trying to create an impression?

If you're already operating yet end up denied, such contributions fall under a whole different set of rules where disclosure is necessary. Only tax exempt organizations get to claim that the money just fell out of the sky, and you're not yet exempt, anyway.

By law, information supplied to the IRS is confidential, anyway, other than in the event of criminal prosecution.

I could follow your own conspiracy theory sort of reasoning to ask "What are they afraid of?" but I really won't.

I agree that the request seems excessively detailed, but so was my last trip to the drivers' license bureau. I wondered, momentarily, if they thought an anal probe would be necessary.

 

[Incorruptible]

So you & Issa are now judge & jury, I suppose.

It's in the Constitution, right?

It's really quite remarkable how your well indoctrinated consciousness can filter out contrary information, particularly when you feel the need to wrap yourself in the mantle of victimhood. It seems to be a big part of right wing delusion.

Why do you work so hard at making yourself miserable?

No we aren't. You're calling me indoctrinated when you support FDR and violate the Constitution. And since when am I a right winger? Keep spouting your BS. You definitely need another teabagging.

 

[Jhhnn]

And since when am I a right winger?

Since you started posting here, probably much longer.

 

[Incorruptible]

Since you started posting here, probably much longer.

Spout all the BS you want but I am not a right winger.